PDA

View Full Version : Should LightWave stay separated or become integrated?



JML
09-23-2004, 11:39 AM
Should LightWave stay separated or become integrated?

on my side, it should be separated ,
when I work on huge projects, where openGL is pretty slow,
I love to be able to open one of the object in the scene in the modeller by itself and do some quick changes.
huge gain of time.


what about you guys ?

DigiLusionist
09-23-2004, 11:52 AM
I don't care if the interface is intergrated. Just unify the underlying code of each. THAT is the most important aspect of integration the rest of us have been looking for.

hrgiger
09-23-2004, 11:55 AM
I also like the app being seperated. Not only does it keep the program from being cluttered, but I also just like the mindset of finishing my work in modeler and moving on to layout.

Having said that, I'm certainly not against a re-write of the program but re-writing the program doesn't necessarily mean that they would have to integrate them. I wouldn't mind at all if they re-wrote Lightwave at some point and kept the apps seperate, as long as more of the functionality of modeler was brought into layout and vice versa.

EDIT: I'd just like to add that it almost wouldn't seem like Lightwave anymore if it was one program. I think it makes it unique and distinguishable from all the other 3D apps.

CB_3D
09-23-2004, 12:30 PM
EDIT: I'd just like to add that it almost wouldn't seem like Lightwave anymore if it was one program. I think it makes it unique and distinguishable from all the other 3D apps.


Nahh, integrate.
Letīs have all the nice tools from Modler for animation, deformation compensation etc etc.

Lightwave is defined by its simplicity. The separation doesnīt add to that. Integrate in a clean and clever way, add a better interface (a lá you know which program) and add edges and more coordinate systems to model and animate.

I REALLY think the time has come to break some ground fast, or else....

Steve McRae
09-23-2004, 12:53 PM
without any doubt - integrate - the hub is an awful thing . . . :)

Nemoid
09-23-2004, 12:56 PM
Integrated. :)

But i'd add one thing to that.

keep the separation between types of file we can save. object and scene. This is possile, and would really be cool just because scenes could be really low in size compared to other apps.

CB_3D
09-23-2004, 01:12 PM
Integrated. :)

But i'd add one thing to that.

keep the separation between types of file we can save. object and scene. This is possile, and would really be cool just because scenes could be really low in size compared to other apps.


Good point!

blabberlicious
09-23-2004, 01:13 PM
First things first:
I'd like the Dopesheet 'integrated' property into the layout
I'd like the Broken Bone tools to be 'integrated' into anything that'll make them work.

Humph

UnCommonGrafx
09-23-2004, 01:37 PM
Me thinks you need to define integration.

I see it as having the same tools, across modeller and Layout, that work in both the same way. Then, integration would be the seamless sending back and forth of resources. Animated booleans would be easy because there would be an equivalent tool for layout as modeler. I've used EditFx Sew and automation to it would hook this whole idea together. (For animated booleans.)

See, I see this as integration:
http://www.creativecow.net/forum/read_post.php?postid=109594021379952&forumid=123
I see LW as a compositor. With AE and DF going the 3D route, I'd say we're already there!! And with the above tool, I see even more application of lw as a compositing engine.

Sped up lw rendering (native and FPrime), easier access to the power under the hood, and give us a modeler that will truly kick the other 'modern' apps' arses(!!!) is all I'm asking for. Specifics are everywhere. ;)


I call that integration.

-EsHrA-
09-23-2004, 02:47 PM
seperate....and maybe even sell them seperate, this meaning modeler and lw render engine, so both apps get their special attention.

think about it....



mlon

Librarian
09-23-2004, 03:52 PM
Both. The only way to make most users happy.
Integrated with all benefits of a seperated Modeling<-> Animation workflow.
No need for a Hub, no switching between apps, animatable modeling tools and shared memory.

JML
09-23-2004, 04:54 PM
now whatever happen, if you want newtek to integrate, it's going to take
a long time to reprogram that.

would you prefer newtek to integrate or would you prefer them to add more features ?


with the poll being pretty much 50 / 50 ,
they probably should keep it seperated and spend more time into adding more features..

Karmacop
09-23-2004, 06:00 PM
I agree with the "integrate them but make them seperate" idea. It should be one program that can be switched between modeller and layout. As far as doing this or adding new features ... I think lightwave will follow this route as lightwave's SDK and core improves along the way.

Muad'dib
09-23-2004, 07:36 PM
I'm happy with the separation as long as the integration works better :D ;) :) - and I'm 100% serious

mattclary
09-23-2004, 09:18 PM
You should have had an option for "Don't Care". Right now I flip back and forth as needed (sans Hub, have never liked it). If it was all integrated it wouldn't hurt my feelings, there is plenty of room for tabs at the top. ;) Heck, you could have tabs and sub-tabs. Have two tabs, one called "Model" and one called "Layout" and different sub-tabs would be visible depending on which you selected.

As long as we never get icons, I'll pretty much stay happy. :cool:

prospector
09-23-2004, 09:20 PM
I'm happy with the separation as long as the integration works better :D ;) :) - and I'm 100% serious


Me too
except I vote for integration.
with layout and modeler screens interchangable with a small button somewhere that sends info thru some kind if router thingy, and updates info on the other screen before ya can get it to the forefront and start working. Maby give it a "hot" button, like....oh I dunno say F12 or some other unused button somewhere.

Man...if they could integrate like that, then all would be fine in Tekkyland tonight.
Except if we went to those goofy and idiotic icony thingys.

Oh yea and I am 110% serious :rolleyes:

Triple G
09-23-2004, 11:02 PM
Just the fact that this question has come up so many times should tell Newtek that there's a problem with the way things are.

As time has passed, we've seen Layout functionality added to Modeler (skelegons, luxigons, etc.), and vice versa (LW8's ability to directly manipulate point positions in Layout, for instance)....this is all well and good, but why not just go all the way and integrate the two apps completely?

Now I'm no programmer and I'm certainly not a fan of the Hub, but I really think that the Hub or something like it is the key to doing this. Imagine the Hub as being a sort of "host app" which contains all the code for both Layout and Modeler, in one unified environment. You'd have one shortcut for LW...you click on it, and this host app launches. You could have tabs to switch back and forth between modeling/animating/rendering/etc., so it wouldn't be all that different from what we're used to now...the main difference would be that you would have access to ALL your tools at ANY time and they would all pass information on to each other properly. Lately I've been doing a lot of matchmoving where shadows from CG objects need to be cast on a live-action plate. With any kind of an organic environment to match (rolling hills/rough terrain/etc), this is INCREDIBLY frustrating with Lightwave's current setup....create your shadow-catching geometry, send it Layout, see that it's not even close, go back to Modeler, try to guess what points you need to move or what areas you need to add detail to, send it back to Layout, ad infinitum. Ridiculous. It's like playing pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey in the dark, blind-folded, while you're wearing a pair of mittens. An integrated environment would fix this by allowing you to create your geometry and view it through the perspective of your scene's camera AS you're making adjustments to the mesh itself...instant feedback, the way it should be.

This is just one example...there are many, many more reasons why integration is the way to go. Why do you think that EVERY other 3d app out there performs in an integrated environment? Because the advantages far outweigh the drawbacks, or any concept of "let's be different for the sake of being different". Layout and Modeler were designed many years ago, completely independently of each other...the creators just happened to say "hey...my program complements your program....let's put them together". As I said, over the years, steps have been taken to make the two work more closely together, but the time has definitely come to make the unification complete.

Silkrooster
09-23-2004, 11:48 PM
I am about 50/50 on this issue. For one I think switching between modeler and layout waste time. However most users got in the habbit of doing all the modeling done before texturing. But when it come you changing a model while animating, it can save a lot of time.
The other side is how much would the program get bogged down having extra code attached. Well this I am not sure on as we all at one time or another are running both programs to once anyways. With faster processors, hyperthreading, ungodly amount of memory and hard drive space. This issue is becoming more and more of a blur.
I just like the ability to work with one interface, I love being able to do test renders of a model while its being created.
Silk

Triple G
09-23-2004, 11:59 PM
The other side is how much would the program get bogged down having extra code attached.

That's just it...with Modeler and Layout separate, if you send a model from Modeler to Layout or vice-versa using the Hub, your system is actually consuming twice the amount of resources because it has to load the object, all of it's textures, any morphs/etc. twice....once for each app. An integrated app would only need to load this data once, and then it's available to all the tools, at any time. :)

Silkrooster
09-24-2004, 12:21 AM
I never really gave it any thought about an object being loaded twice. Lightwave would bog down a lot if you are using multiple layers, etc. If Newtek wanted to do this and beable to make everyone happy. They could make one program and give a tab for modeler and one for layout. However doing it this way would only require one object loaded and features like viper and rendering can be used. This should satisfy those that like it the way it is. Also if the user interface is editable. It would be possible to delete those tabs and have just one set of tools.
One more thing plugins would only have to be loaded once as well. As one plug in can handle the feature set of both modeling and layout. Scripts would be more robust as well.
Silk

JCG
09-24-2004, 01:37 AM
I want it more separated! Two is not enough!! :)

Well, I like having a modeler where you can build an object with many layers without any interference of other scene objects. I like having a layout that loads objects but doesn't appropriate them.

But if they both had a single core and we could use any layout tools in modeler if we wished or any modeler tools in layout if we wished and we could create other "applications" with a mixture of modeler and layout tools and viewports like a... I don't know, a texturer, a jointmorphadjusterer or a setuper :P that would be ideal, I guess.

In such a case, they wouldn't be different exes, they'd be different shortcuts, one pointing to lightwave.exe /modeler and the other to lightwave.exe /layout and we could create new shortcuts to lightwave.exe /mycustomthingy1... I wouldn't mind something like that if all open instances could share data.

The current path of rebuilding modeler functionality in layout and vice versa could be good too but one wonders if it won't end up being even more laborious and resource heavy in the long run...

Johnnyx
09-24-2004, 03:57 AM
SEPARATE!

As folk have said - separate is the uniqueness of the app.. it needs to work well, that goes without saying .

I find the work flow and "mindset" of two apps very tidy and easy to manage. If LW was integrated (like the rest of the 3D clone apps) the first thing I would need to do is set-up referencing object/scenes anyway! - at the moment I can update a character used in 15 scenes once, and bang - all scenes updated.... If integrated, when working on a scene without referencing, you can end up "tweaking" models without realising it .. and before too long you can lose continuity between shots/models! (oops... or is that just me?)

separate, separate,separate... (like good old Wavefront was!)

However! I would like to see things you CAN edit in layout updated in the model file on "save scene" ..things like animating materials... the amount of times I have forgotten to save the blinkin' model.......!

mrunion
09-24-2004, 05:33 AM
I;ve used apps of both kinds -- integrated and separate. I REALLY believe separate is better for most things.

Karmacop
09-24-2004, 08:23 AM
Of course seperate is best, I don't think anyone here has said otherwise, but have instead suggest to merge the apps into one but have them act as different modules. This isn't like photoshop where every plugin is loaded on opening up the program, so it wont take a lot of memory, and a lot of things are common between modeler and layout anyway, like the surface editor, open gl views etc. Not only this but when you have the same model open in modeler and layout it's actually loaded into ram twice. So the suggestion is to merge the apps so that they don't need to load two copies of the same model, or two dlls for the surface editor. But there'd still be seperate lwo and lws files. You coud still have multiple copies of lightwave open. I'm sure there's other things but I think this is the way the integration camp is leanin at the moment. I really don't think anyone wants it to be integrated like max :p

Ztreem
09-24-2004, 08:40 AM
I choose seperate, I think... or integrated based on the "integrate them but make them seperate" idea.
I don't think that one of the two needs to exclude the other one, I hope I make sense.

I mean if they are seperated, got them to work better together. Do so we could use the things we want from modeler in layout and the things we want from layout in modeler. Hmmmm... Maybe they should be integrated afterall.

Whatever happens, make it possible to tweak our scenes in layout while we are rendering. (Like you could in other apps, no names.) :D

I vote for integration.

Steve McRae
09-24-2004, 08:40 AM
I definitely mean a rewrite to put them together. There are other apps that do this succesfuly - take maya for example :)

Exper
09-24-2004, 09:23 AM
This isn't like photoshop where every plugin is loaded on opening up the program...Ok... we know... this is a way... but you can create a single app without loading all the plugins then maintaing a reference you can load/unload them as needed! :cool:

Lightwolf
09-24-2004, 09:33 AM
Integrated!

'nuff said, I think I've posted enough on why I think integration must come. ;)

Cheers,
Mike

anieves
09-24-2004, 11:34 AM
Integrated. :)

But i'd add one thing to that.

keep the separation between types of file we can save. object and scene. This is possile, and would really be cool just because scenes could be really low in size compared to other apps.

Absoluteley! I have mention this before. IMO this is the true benefit of having 2 separate apps. Besides its kinda aggravating to work on a 2 monitor set up and have 2 Surface Editors and 2 image editors open and click on the wrong one. :mad:

I've used apps of both kinds -- integrated and separate. I REALLY believe integrated is better for most things. ;) :D

Chingis
09-24-2004, 01:08 PM
Integrate!

- Render while you model/texture

- Make objects in your scenes on the fly

- Animate modeling operations

- Draw out motion paths on the fly

- Get rid of crap like Skelegons, Luxigons, Powergons
and avoid all the conversion nonsense.

- Real smart skin w/out plugins

- Shared Open Gl paragdim


The possabilities are much more endless.

Fausto
09-24-2004, 10:45 PM
How about they just build an application that doesn't crash every 20 minutes.. I'd be happy with that. Forget for the moment that you have two different applications with two different personalities, that can be dealt with later

For instance, why is it that you can't navigate your way around the perspective view in layout the same way you can in Modeler, by holding the alt and shift keys in combination with the left and right mouse keys? It just seems odd that you have two different conventions for doing the same thing.. There are some good things about the LW interface, but there's lots of lame *** things too.

midosujisen
09-25-2004, 12:53 AM
Forget for the moment that you have two different applications with two different personalities, that can be dealt with later

For instance, why is it that you can't navigate your way around the perspective view in layout the same way you can in Modeler, by holding the alt and shift keys in combination with the left and right mouse keys? It just seems odd that you have two different conventions for doing the same thing.

I 100% agree with you.

Exper
09-25-2004, 02:32 AM
More than agree... me too!

ingo
09-25-2004, 02:40 AM
Integrate!

- Render while you model/texture

- Make objects in your scenes on the fly

- Animate modeling operations

- Draw out motion paths on the fly

- Get rid of crap like Skelegons, Luxigons, Powergons
and avoid all the conversion nonsense.

- Real smart skin w/out plugins

- Shared Open Gl paragdim


The possabilities are much more endless.


I agree with that 99 %. Its a lot of pain in the a... when youre in the beginning of a project and while doing the first testrenderings you find some modelling errors. Save everything in Layout (and wait and wait and wait....), close Layout and open modeller, change the modell and save, reopen Layout and testrender again.

And in addition to the list above camera mapping or front projection mapping will be much easier. But on the other hand, a lot of plugins will be useless when LW is reunited. I have tried a friends C4D and it was a much easier workflow than LW's seperated apps. The only seperation could be the renderer, similar to ElectricImage's camera.

electropulse
09-26-2004, 08:08 PM
one exe with 2 shortcuts would be great!

blabberlicious
09-27-2004, 02:21 AM
I'd love to be able to launch files by clicking on them, so that they open up in their respective creator app.

This doesn't happen on a mac - the HUB decides to pop in front instead.

Done this since 8.

Super-tedious having to go though the file dialogue when the files you need (thanks to Expose ) are always sitting there in front of you.

So, personally I'd try to integrate the app with the operating system !

:-)

...then, perhaps, look at uniting the tools & workflow.

riki
09-27-2004, 05:45 AM
I voted for seperate, but think intergrated could be good if you had different modeling and animating modes, to keep things uncluttered.

janoverust
09-27-2004, 07:21 AM
With tools like, Bevel, Edge Bevel, Rounder, Extrude, Smooth Shift, Super Shift, Extender Plus, Extender - when a simple extrude ala XSI/maya could do, they will have a hard time getting it integrated. ;) :rolleyes:

anieves
09-27-2004, 07:43 AM
With tools like, Bevel, Edge Bevel, Rounder, Extrude, Smooth Shift, Super Shift, Extender Plus, Extender - when a simple extrude ala XSI/maya could do, they will have a hard time getting it integrated. ;) :rolleyes:

Isn't this similar to several extrude operations for the different components in Maya? Extrude face, Extrude Vertex, Extrude Edge... why not just have one extrude? not to mention merge... Maybe I'm just missing something since I don't really like modeling in Maya...

janoverust
09-27-2004, 08:39 AM
My point is that in Modeler, they could combine some tools, and make them more powerful. Like Extrude with a merge option.
Try ctrl+D in XSI, and you see what I mean.

And yes... I do my modeling in Modeler :D

oblivionblack
09-27-2004, 01:43 PM
make everyone happy: add the possibility to switch between integrated/separated at any time so you can use the integrated only when needed or always if you like.. :D

Intuition
09-27-2004, 03:19 PM
Lets see where do I start?

I have been using Lightwave since 4.0.

One thing I really liked about it is that modeling tools and animation tools are separate.

In MAX you have all the stuff sitting there together.

Now if you get used to the workflow in MAX it wont even bother you at all.

In Lightwave I really enjoyed the seperation of the two ideas. Modeler is like the miniature/creature shops where oyu make and detail the models and Lightwave is the virtual stage you light and shott the models in.

Well, this is great but there are problems. People will often want to see a full rendered object in Modeler since they will try to do some work there to try and sync up geometry with texture maps.

SO....off to Layout we go. And this is why some people don't like the two program situation. Perhaps if the HUB is really where the models and textures where loaded and then LW and modeler grabbed the info from there then you wouldn't have all the RAM usage loading the same object twice.

But....people will like integration cause they can imagine animating with the modeling tools. Among other things.

I haven't really had a problem with the issues because I have a disciplined workflow. Its not perfect but it works for me.

Now that we have F-Prime we can see alot of things in real time for texturing and lighting which has helped LW turn into a serious workhorse for me. A week project can now take like a day or two. My turn arounds are fast now.

So if I had to equate what was the most important aspect of having modeler and LW integrated (do you mean both in one program?) then I would say it has mostly to do with seeing the objetc in a full render then needing to make changes.

If there was a way to get F-Prime to preview in modeler with a general lighting setup so we could see bump maps and textures there then maybe the workflow could be improved. Besides that I can only see a huge problem making a gigantic mecca of buttons and panels trying to combine the two programs.

Unless of course you could make the modeler and LW models/images pulled from the same single data loaded in memory.

Then maybe a quick switch/button could be pressed and you would take the selected item into an editing mode for modeling where all the tools are available and then press again and go bakc to your layout situation with the cameras and lights.

Just my 79 cents.

Nemoid
09-28-2004, 08:02 AM
The current structure separated between modeler and layout, make u focus on actual modelling one object, and then animating it in layout. though, this "focusing" while can appear helpful hydes from your mind some things.

one thing is that textures and image files are loaded twice, when u work modeler + layout opened. plugs are coded twice most of the times because some parts of them work in modeler or /and Layout, and the same is valid for tools.

At the same time, u are unable to use things like real bones in modeler,(infact there's the skelegon workaround) and the same is valid for testing your model with them rotating them. at the same time , u can't build weightmaps in Layout to fine tune deformations and so on.

into an integrated environment, u will have less code, and all the possibilities i talked about, plus many other, just like animation of modelling parameters and edits, lights in modeler, materials wich work efficiently and consistently between the 2 conpartments and more. No more skelegons or oter strange workarounds to give u the same tools of the animatio compartment: tools will be the same.

Also u don't have to make confusion between integration and UI organization.

u can have a "layout" animation compartment, with all related tools,(and if u want some useful ones from modelling compartment) and at the same time, a modelling/edit compartment where u could go and edit your mesh or also only model it the first time.
But the toolset will be the same. u could have some tools repeated in the 2 compartments to your choice, so that edit or model or whatever will be easy (just because showing 2 times the same tool is not like having double code )

Into a good integrated app u could work in different fashions : similar to separated or to integrated one app structure, a la Maya, or even other environments with more separation between different compartments of your choice. so an extended power to ui organization could be in your hands.

This being said, a good thing would be to mantain the current way to save meshes as pure geometry as well.

this, even if not standard, will give us the cool possibility to build our scenes like now, because they're smaller than other apps. this is where "separation" comes in help - different ways to save your work- not between different apps.

prospector
09-29-2004, 08:56 AM
seperate is pulling ahead
WOOHOO!!!

Lightwolf
09-29-2004, 09:01 AM
seperate is pulling ahead
WOOHOO!!!
Actually, Integrated is catching up :)

TheDevil
09-29-2004, 09:09 AM
I vote for separately integrated. Modeller and Layout could be gradually transformed into more generic modules, and the hub more into a decent object oriented HUB, so data could be shared better including the possibility of animated modelling etc. The HUB could become a kind of 3D OS. :D

Karmacop
09-29-2004, 10:42 AM
For anyone that really thinks seperate is a better idea: If Lightwave acted exactly as it did now, only it was integrated (so that you couldn't tell), would you be opposed to integration?

TheDevil, that's funny, but I'm hoping it ends up a bit like that. I know the dev team is working on the core, and I can only hope they finish with something amazing.

Steve McRae
09-29-2004, 10:45 AM
die mr.hub die!!!!

Lightwolf
09-29-2004, 10:46 AM
Hehe, heck if would act as (...stupid...) as it does now, even I'd be against integration ;)

Cheers,
Mike :p

CB_3D
09-29-2004, 11:26 AM
make everyone happy: add the possibility to switch between integrated/separated at any time so you can use the integrated only when needed or always if you like.. :D

Yikes, donīt give them ideas like that! That would probably involve two different work methods. Integrated would make animated modelling possible, separated not. load from scene wouldnīt mix these two formats and it would result in one big soup with different tastes ;-) Also update cycles would be longer because of these problems.

Very bad idea! Now, a visual separation, like a modelling mode in Layout, where You could choose between raw object (undeformed mesh) and Layout time (animated modelling) would make more sense. Also for jointcorrection (automated or not) this would open great possibilities.

lunarcamel
09-29-2004, 11:37 AM
Hey this poll is practically split down the middle - which makes me think of having my butt cheeks integrated. :D It might make my butt more efficient - who knows!

This issue has been a hot topic for years - I'm polled out!

Exper
09-29-2004, 11:44 AM
Separated or Ingerated? Who cares!

rabid pitbull
09-29-2004, 12:33 PM
I tell you the root of many of LW problems are due to the fact that it is two apps. For instance one of my biggest gripes with this is setting up character rigs. Basically if you could adjust wieghts while a object is deformed the need for asprin would go down dramatically. I understand that haveing seperate modules is good for focusing on the task at hand. The problem is that too many situations where both modeler and layout each have a necessary function to accomplish what you want. This defeats the point of it being set up this way. Just not a good implementation of this idea.

I strongly vote for integration of apps and a quick death to the hub.

Steve McRae
09-29-2004, 01:20 PM
http://www.atomworks.com/public/hub_wanted.gif

JML
09-29-2004, 01:43 PM
since it's pretty much 50/50 , newtek should probably keep it the way it is and
add more features...

the Hub in LW8 never crashed on my computer until now.
I remember the HUB in LW7.5 would crash a lot when switching between layout and
modeler.. LW8 is in overall more stable I think..
after trying it at work, it makes me want to upgrade it at home... which I probably will
soon

are the people who prefer integrated mostly (characters) animators ?

Lightwolf
09-29-2004, 01:49 PM
are the people who prefer integrated mostly (characters) animators ?

I do just about anything else _but_ character animation, but I guess that is exactly why I want it integrated :)

But, I mainly do animation, yes. I'm not much of a modeler, and I more and more feel the need to model in context.

Cheers,
Mike

Nemoid
09-29-2004, 02:52 PM
if u watch a bit closer other apps u may find that programs like XSI or Maya or Max are animation related. that's why they are so good into rigging and animation process, and less in modelling, in general. while Lw has in animation and CA in particular its weakest part.

on the other hand modelling its Lw stronger part so far (Modo excluded LOL)

Integrated stucture comes because ogėf the need of a complete consistent and flexible process between modelling and animation and rendering,allowing the user to go (if necessary) back and forth between these tasks and in the future this will be more and more true.

These facts and also problems derived from the current structure and code, like for example the linear fashion in wich plugs work and influence each other, require a good rethinking of Lw core, going towards a nodal structure, and an integration between modeler and Layout wich could hopefully give life to one app with 2 or more compartments (UI organization)working seamlesly and smoothly wich each other .

then a cool thing could be to have these compartments as modules as well, let's say modelling, animation rendering. some tools will obviously be common between them, but you could fire up one of them at the time, if u like animating only or modelling only. and also they could be sold separately.

Every tool could be a plug, working smoothly with a common core (very different from an hub indeed)

The core could be very opened for what concerns its structure (nodal) and its api, and the sdk too. this will result in plugs wich could work very efficiently between each other and with the app itself.

These things would give u the best of both worlds. integrated or separated ? only a work fashion that gives u what u want/need :)

Lightwolf
09-29-2004, 02:59 PM
on the other hand modelling its Lw stronger part so far.
Is or was?
Poly modelling: True.
SDS Modelling: Well, edges and edge weights?
Patch Modelling: :mad:

Cheers,
Mike - back to animating :)

TheDevil
09-29-2004, 04:35 PM
Nemoid - Sounds like you are describing Nexus.

Ouch!! Slapped my wrist before the moderators do.

Lightwave is a good all round tool. Hopefully we will have Lightwave in our bed more often when the next update comes out :D

prospector
09-29-2004, 10:04 PM
If Lightwave acted exactly as it did now, only it was integrated (so that you couldn't tell), would you be opposed to integration?

Yes
It's like the old Coke/Pepsi taste test
I CAN TELL

Exper
09-30-2004, 01:46 AM
This Thread is so funny... belly laughs! :)

Someone soon will say that we must not cry or demand for a better LW... hoping they'll wait a little more... we deserve some more dirty jokes! :cool:

Nemoid
09-30-2004, 07:02 AM
Is or was?
Poly modelling: True.
SDS Modelling: Well, edges and edge weights?
Patch Modelling: :mad:

Cheers,
Mike - back to animating :)

Well, poly modelling in lw is a great thing and u have alot of tools and free plugs to get your job done efficiently.

SDS modelling is quite good depending on what u model. for box modelling, current subpatches with 3 or 4 vertex polygons work good ( it's always adviced in all 3D applications that u do organic modelling with all quads if possible), while ngons and edges come to be really handy when u want to make inorganic stuff wich takes advantage of gons to use less polygons and, edge weighting for hard edges with less geometry as well. but no one stops you from modelling in lw with more geometry as well. n gons and eges are great though, and they will be surely welcome. tis way you will end up with way less geometry!!

i dunno patch modelling so well, so i skip that point. however, if u compare lw with other packages, modelling there is really fun

@TheDevil : i'm not decribing an exact application. you could say the same about XSI.
Nexus isn't out yet, so we dunno exactly what it will be, also because it seems to be more a platform rather that a complete app.Sinve we are in a nt forum, i will stop talking of Nexus exactly now.

My only point is : we have the tools and a complete app wich make us go from modelling to animating and rendering (in a linear fashion) let's integrate ll this stuff putting into a great environment and base structure, and we will end up with quite the same tools (ok some current plugs would not be necessary ) working into a modern and flexible fashion, that will allow us to work how we want to.

Lightwolf
09-30-2004, 07:18 AM
i dunno patch modelling so well, so i skip that point. however, if u compare lw with other packages, modelling there is really fun
The problem is imho, that LW has turned a bit from a swiss pocket knife of 3D, into a "niche" app. It might be fine to model characters and stuff (Even if people switch to other apps just for that as well), but currently needs to be complemented by other tools for other areas of modelling (technical parts for example).
Either that, or you import huge stl files :)

I still have the hope to be able to concentrate on _one_ package to do my (3D) jobs, even though this seems to be more and more of an illusion.
I'm just ot much of a fan of using multiple apps in a workflow as tight as 3D (animate here - need to fix model, import to model app, tweak, export to animation, import in animation....Man, that is so ... 20th century ;) ).
I'm quite glad we have the hub, better than nothing. But there is imho a lot left to do in terms of workflow.

Cheers,
Mike

JohnMarchant
09-30-2004, 10:20 AM
Been wathcing this thread with interest, heres my 10 pence worth. The next major update of LightWave (v 9.0). I would like all the tools currently there to work, seamlessly, together with no issues. I would like some of the bugs that have been around longer that 1 major update to be sorted out and erradicated (this is a must we still have bugs with things from v 7 and 7.5). Would love to be able to customize to my requirements the interface, ie, font size, color, position etc.

I really do not want any new tools (Well NGons maybe), i want the package that we all love to be alot more stable and for the current tools to do what there meant to do

In short NT sort out what we already have for v 9, dont give us extra tools, release the SDK for designers. And 1 day the whole package is going to need a re-write from the ground upwards, but thats in the future. I would rather NT tell us there would be no significant updates for 1 year or so, but they would do a total re-write released after that.

I personally love LightWave and as far as bang for buck goes its still better than alot out there, even Cinema 4D now goes for over $2000 for the pro edition, with many features we already have for alot less money. LightWave shows its age now and again and can be a little cranky sometimes, but age is also experiance and pedigree which NT and LightWave have in spades.

Good LUck and Godspeed to NT & LightWave

Lightwolf
09-30-2004, 10:26 AM
In short NT sort out what we already have for v 9, dont give us extra tools, release the SDK for designers....

Make that 8.x and I'd agree :)

Cheers,
Mike

Matt
09-30-2004, 01:35 PM
I voted for seperate, but think intergrated could be good if you had different modeling and animating modes, to keep things uncluttered.

I agree, the only way to do it (XSI style) ...

Steve McRae
09-30-2004, 01:41 PM
kind of reminds me of Maya (which is a good thing) . . .

Lamont
10-07-2004, 11:11 AM
Under Win2k/XP Pro, no app can use more than 2gigs of ram. Since LW is seperate, it can use 2gigs for modeling/ 2 gigs for animation/rendering. I think that's sweet.

Lightwolf
10-07-2004, 11:16 AM
Under Win2k/XP Pro, no app can use more than 2gigs of ram.
Actually, 3GB is the limit, if the app supports it, under XP Pro.
Hm, it might even be possible to patch LW to support it...

Cheers,
Mike

Lamont
10-07-2004, 11:22 AM
3 gigs? Even better :D

art
10-07-2004, 12:42 PM
... and mr. Gates thought 640k should be enough for everyone
:)

jin choung
10-07-2004, 08:39 PM
personally,

i find the current state of segregation to be not only unhelpful but backwards and shameful.

the only hope for our two applications is a coming together into a close-knit integration that not only binds their codes, but verily, their very hearts, genitals and souls.

it is time for these separated lovers to consummate their bond and enthusiasticaly interchange their logical fluids.

only then, with a dialectical clash between thesis and antithesis will we burst forth in a revolution of synthesis.

search your hearts, you know it to be true. NOOOOO that's impothible!!! Nooo!

for isn't it written, "there can be only One?"

jin

Kuzey
10-07-2004, 09:08 PM
personally,

the only hope for our two applications is a coming together into a close-knit integration that not only binds their codes, but verily, their very hearts, genitals and souls.

it is time for these separated lovers to consummate their bond and enthusiasticaly interchange their logical fluids.

jin

Isn't Modeler and Layout more like a brother and sister.... :eek: :eek: :eek:

Two is better then one!!!

Kuzey

jin choung
10-07-2004, 09:33 PM
yeah,

brother and sister LIKE A FOX!

'sides, you'd change your mind if you only knew the dark side of the stuff that went down between when they met to the revelation that luke and leia were siblings in 'jedi'....

oh yeah. DOWN TOWN. you know.

just wait for episode 5.5: Forbidden Love.

jin

Nemoid
10-08-2004, 01:36 AM
I'm more than sure than the same people wich like Lw separated, will be pleased from a Lw integrated, if the work is done well.

Just because no one would stop them from working the old way, especially if Lw would be integrated with a moduler structure. great advantages, more ways to organize YOUR workflow and have the app suit you , not the contrary.

Cheers.

NanoGator
10-08-2004, 01:30 PM
If one defines integrated as "house both apps in one big window sorta like After Effects, but keep the operations more or less seperate", then I'd say go for it. If one means "turn it into 3D Studio MAX" then I say "argh."

Lightwolf
10-08-2004, 03:49 PM
If one defines integrated as "house both apps in one big window sorta like After Effects, but keep the operations more or less seperate", then I'd say go for it. If one means "turn it into 3D Studio MAX" then I say "argh."
Hehe, I want neither :) Forget the big window, house both parts on the same core, and turn the viewports into multi-use views. Like a quad view, the views show an objects orthographic in a modeler, centered at the origin, position, and the third shows a camera view of the scene with the object in "layout" position ... nice :)

Or a dual monitor set-up, with animation one side, modelling on the other, ,but shared assets and instant updates of objects (...since it isn't really an update anyhow).

Nobody who wants integration is against keeping a "legacy" workflow up, we all appreciate it, but we see integration as a way to optimize and streamline it, not to complicate it.

Cheers,
Mike

GruvSyco
10-08-2004, 06:12 PM
I agree, the only way to do it (XSI style) ...

Hey Matt, while we're fantasizing about UI mods... You should add an option for Icons/Text/Icons&Text

oops did I just add fuel to the fire

Kuzey
10-08-2004, 11:09 PM
yeah,

brother and sister LIKE A FOX!

'sides, you'd change your mind if you only knew the dark side of the stuff that went down between when they met to the revelation that luke and leia were siblings in 'jedi'....

oh yeah. DOWN TOWN. you know.

just wait for episode 5.5: Forbidden Love.

jin

You do know those films aren't that good :p

Cardboard cut outs can do a better acting job and that director, well it should be law that he can't direct or even go near a movie set!!!!

I saw a bit of Doctor Who last week and guess who was the villain...the original Darth Vader, all in red :D :D

Kuzey

Johnny
02-13-2005, 08:00 PM
from my perspective, separate "modules" is the way to go. If the hub is busted, and it seems to be, then it ought to be fixed.

Separate 'modules' enable modeling to happen while rendering takes place..I'd even like to see Rendering be its own module, so you'd have 3: Modeler, Layout, and Render.

I'd like to see a continuation of the setup wherein you can continue to work in one or more modules while rendering takes place.

J

riki
02-13-2005, 08:06 PM
Someone's dredging up old threads :)

For my two cents, combine them, trash the hub and have two seperate modes, one for modeling one for layout, just don't confuse the two.

3d user
02-15-2005, 03:12 AM
Here my reasons for keeping separated ;) :

- Modeler and Layout like quarreling husband and wife! So keep them separated.

- I just love how Hub works! Why don't they sell the Hub as a separe program?

- When modelling I'd hate to see how it renders out! I love the extra steps in saving/opening/crashing with hub when I want to see a render of a WIP model.

- the separation is a GREAT asset! Just surf the bulletin boards of othe 3d programs: they a FILLED with requests: "When id 3D nnn getting the axe and be separated just like LW??" LW has one super-feature that NO OTHER 3d program maker has yet accomplished (or want). The other day I asked a user of another 3d program about the hub. This guy is of "My 3d program is great and yours is a piece of s..." -type. So I asked him: "Just forget that you hate LW for a moment and say really really honestly as a user of a competing program: should LW be separated?". He paused and then with a smile said: "This is my truly honest answer, really, keep LW separated!". That pretty much sums it up.

- If it ("The Hub") works (kindof) why fix it? Who needs workflow advancement?? Why would anyone want to remove the Hub? Just think for a moment: if the Hub should be removed the workflow of current LW would suffer greatly. Ergo the Hub is an asset.

- I hope they bring same sort of GREAT feature to Photoshop! Now how would same kind of workflow be done in PS? (thinking...) Oh yeaht: since modeller can't show a real render PS should ditch the wysiwyg display and have a Direct3d display instead! PS users would work, like, behind a veil and use another program to see how it really pans out. Wow! Wouldn't it that make users happy!

- IF the separation is finally, after all these years, at version 9 completed I'm gonna still use them separate: I open LW 9 two times! And perhaps a third time to salute the Hub.

Captain Obvious
02-15-2005, 07:01 AM
I really think they should stay separated! With virtual desktops, it is so darned smooth to have modelling on one desktop and layout on another. The only hazzle is that you actually have to save every model to try out renderings, even if you're just playing around or testing something. But it's worth it.

edit: is "darned" the worst langauge allowed here? Wow... :rolleyes:

Lightwolf
02-15-2005, 07:09 AM
I really think they should stay separated! With virtual desktops, it is so darned smooth to have modelling on one desktop and layout on another.
Yeah, but that has _nothing_ to do with integration at all. You are talking about a solid, unified GUI... a different topic ;)

Cheers,
Mike

Karmacop
02-15-2005, 07:17 AM
This is the problem isn't it? Everyone has a different idea of what "integrated" means :rolleyes:

Lightwolf
02-15-2005, 07:23 AM
This is the problem isn't it? Everyone has a different idea of what "integrated" means :rolleyes:
Yep, of course. I tend to look at it from a workflow point of view, not from what is presented to me in the GUI, and that makes the decisions toward integration an easy one. Especially looking at the fake integration we have now through the hub (however useful it is, but that little thing is the only reason for me _not_ to use another modeler....).

Cheers,
Mike

Captain Obvious
02-15-2005, 07:51 AM
Yeah, but that has _nothing_ to do with integration at all. You are talking about a solid, unified GUI... a different topic ;)

Cheers,
Mike

I assumed that was what people meant when they said "integrated." ;) I think it is fairly integrated as it is. I do something in Modeller, and without even saving it, Layout updates. I can't see how that part could be more integrated. Is it the Hub that enables that?

JohnMarchant
02-15-2005, 08:00 AM
I would prefer separate. Im on PC and as far as im aware (and this could have changed), windows will only allow a program to use a max of 2 Gb of memory. So lightwave gets 2Gb for Modeler and 2 Gb for Layout, or 4Gb in total. So for me if this is indeed still the case i prefer separate.

I would still like to see some improvements in the Hub, especially in stability, but i hope they concentrate on the overall stability of the program and sort out the bugs. I would like LW9 to be as bug free and working as possible.

Regards John

Lightwolf
02-15-2005, 08:06 AM
Yup, that is the hub.
O.k., simple example: Your working on a complex mechanical object, tons of layers, some probably animated. Pivots points moved, stuff like that. Now you want to tweak on of the objects in yur hierarchy because it doesn't fit.
Now it is:
- Switch to modeler, eyeball the changes, tweak, switch to layout to check.
- repeat until satisfied.
(may be do a save tranformed in the meantime to know the actual position of your objects, etc...).
It could be:
- switch view to modelling (in context)
- tweak object while seeing the rest of the scene
- switch view back to animation

Some other (often mentioned) advantages:
- Less resources used, images and meshes will only be present in memory once
- animatable modelling tools
- unified code for the developers to concentrate on (not two openGL systems like we have now). The same goes for the SDK.

Cheers,
Mike

Lightwolf
02-15-2005, 08:08 AM
I would prefer separate. Im on PC and as far as im aware (and this could have changed), windows will only allow a program to use a max of 2 Gb of memory. So lightwave gets 2Gb for Modeler and 2 Gb for Layout, or 4Gb in total. So for me if this is indeed still the case i prefer separate.
I think by the time integration will appear on our boxes, the 2GB issue will be the least of our problems. 64bit here we come...

Cheers,
Mike

Karmacop
02-15-2005, 08:26 AM
I don't even know why we have 2 seperate open gl systems at the moment. LW 8 upgraded leyout's open gl to allow heaps of cool things but modeler's is still the crappy old one. It just doesn't make sense. Lightwave already shares some stuff, so why not the open gl? :mad:

Captain Obvious
02-15-2005, 08:27 AM
Considering those issues, maybe it is better to integrate them fully, and just keep Modeller and Layout in separate windows, if at all possible.

Lightwolf
02-15-2005, 08:29 AM
I don't even know why we have 2 seperate open gl systems at the moment. LW 8 upgraded leyout's open gl to allow heaps of cool things but modeler's is still the crappy old one. It just doesn't make sense. Lightwave already shares some stuff, so why not the open gl? :mad:
Because there are different requirements (which is the one bit that will make integration hard). OpenGL in Modeler and Layout display different things, and I'd assume that even internally meshes are stored differently. As a start, in Modeller at any time can you vary the number of points and polygons in a mesh, in Layout you can't. Different optimizations can take place then.
Also, Modeller displays point/poly selections, allows for point/poly selections in an openGL view, display normals...

Cheers,
Mike

Karmacop
02-15-2005, 08:44 AM
I understand that, but it doesn't explain why modeler can't do reflections, real transparency and diffuse maps ;)

3d user
02-15-2005, 09:18 AM
I assumed that was what people meant when they said "integrated." ;) I think it is fairly integrated as it is. I do something in Modeller, and without even saving it, Layout updates. I can't see how that part could be more integrated. Is it the Hub that enables that?

Huh?? Wot? Heresy!! How on earth THAT could be in the way of enhanced workflow???

KEEP 'EM SEMIRATE...er...SEPARATE!

(looking for wooden stake and crusifixes...)

Lightwolf
02-15-2005, 09:22 AM
(looking for wooden stake and crusifixes...)
Lol, you should change your nick to Van Lightsing then ;)

Cheers,
Darkwolf ;)

madjester
02-15-2005, 09:32 AM
They day its integrated, I buy Modo to model and use Maya to animate. Lightwave to me is both but better.

Lightwolf
02-15-2005, 09:38 AM
They day its integrated, I buy Modo to model and use Maya to animate. Lightwave to me is both but better.
Now this is something I don't get at all...
If I were in favour of separation, I'd do exactly that _now_, since it would give me a very separated workflow indeed (heck even no hub at all, load'n'save :) ).
...less integration than LW has now, great, what a workflow improvement ;)

Cheers,
Mike

GruvSyco
02-15-2005, 10:04 AM
I'm for a different type of seperation.

I'd like to see Newtek completely pull the renderer out of the layout exe. Have the renderer load as a service (then we could easily install the service on other nodes for a render farm). Make layout interface automatically with the new renderer in that, when you do a preview render, it would automatically render out across all the nodes (maybe something like thread = node) and pull it back into the preview window.

This would definitely make the screamernet scenario alot easier to deal with.

Lightwolf
02-15-2005, 10:12 AM
GruvSyco,
While I strongly agree with you, this has imho nothing to do with itegration or not. It does have to do with the re-write of the renderer though ;)

Also, consider this, the more "remote" the renderer is from the main app, the onger it will take to "kick in" for a preview renderer. Just think about the time it currently takes for a node to load a scene. Do you want to wait that long for a preview render to even start? If you keep the renderer closer to the app, but still allow remote nodes to load the scene and render away, you'd get faster feedback right away, and later on a speed increase once the other boxes have loaded and rendered a bit.

Cheers,
Mike