PDA

View Full Version : Please add Modeling tools to Layout!!



SCS5
05-11-2005, 09:15 AM
In Lightwave, Please add some modeling tools to layout. I’ve been using Lightwave since v4, and the most frustrating thing for me is the fact that Modeler and Layout are still separate!! I’ve heard the arguments against it, clutter, simplicity, etc.…. But, can any one tell me why it would be bad to be able to animate a vehicle, character or logo by just pulling on some points or twisting, sculpting, and reshaping the model on the fly, and keyframing the “tweaks” right there in Layout. The increase in productivity would be HUGE!!! Get an idea in Layout, make the change, keyframe it, and move on. If this is a bad thing then please enlighten me!

All I’m thinking is another tab on top in Layout that would open a set of modeling tools on the left side of the screen. Bend, Dragnet, Twist, Magnet, Booleans, Etc. Basically, most of the tools in under the Modeler Modify, Multiply, & Construct Tabs All keyframeable. No more complex than Layout is today, just 100 times more powerful.

This way all the people who want to keep it seperate can have it that way, but, any one who wants to have the power of both just a keyframe away can have that too. Lets catch up with the rest of the 3D world…. Any thoughts?

PepeWan
05-11-2005, 09:27 AM
It may not be exactly what you're looking for, but Bend, Pole, Shear, Taper, Twist, and Vortex are already in Layout (Object Properties/Deform/Add Displacement).

SCS5
05-11-2005, 09:44 AM
I know about these options, I've used them, a+b null controls..... clunky at best. These are just simple and not very versitle workarounds.

I'm talking about real modeling in Layout. Select points, or ploys, Bevel, Magic Bevel, Drill a hole, Drag points, whatever, animate it. Keyframe, done!.

prospector
05-11-2005, 01:01 PM
You can also manipulate points in layout as shown on Protons demo of the cloth cut.

SCS5
05-11-2005, 06:16 PM
Yes I've seen this tut. too........ Jumping through hoops to accomplish simple tasks. Why is everyone happy with workarounds instead of making the program really powerful? You can do lots of things in 10 or 20 steps now. Got an idea for a change in Layout, go to modeler, pick Endomorph, give it a name, pull some points, save the model, Synchronize Layout, go to Layout, Object/hit P for Properties/go to Deform/pick Morphmixer/ open Morph mixer/ drag sliders/ set Keyframe......I like that, looks good, ...but wait, I want to move some other points too.................Oh no!!!

Wouldn’t it be better to just pick drag points in Layout, interactively pick the diameter & drag them, then set a keyframe for this move? Presto, done!

kjl
05-11-2005, 07:46 PM
Wouldn’t it be better to just pick drag points in Layout, interactively pick the diameter & drag them, then set a keyframe for this move? Presto, done!

I think because putting controls like that opens a huge can of worms. It's one of those things that sounds like a simple thing, but if you were to really try to think about how you'd use it or how you'd expect it to behave given other use cases it become a lot less clear what exactly you want.

e.g.

Do you save your mesh modifications with the object or the scene file? Probably the scene file, since you're animating them, but then what happens if you go change the original mesh object? The vertex ID's are not guaranteed to stay the same and you may even have deleted the points you were animating in Layout.

Are you saving the modifications as a world space translate offset or local space translate? Or rotate or scale? Or in some other space determined by local bones? If you pull a few points on the wrist and then later go change the rotation of your shoulder bone, what do those points do? Or if you rip out the arm bones and rerig it?

How do you find and modify your mesh modifications? You can't have all hundred thousand points in your various scene/graph editors. Do you want your scene file to be bloated with gigabytes of per-point mesh animation keyframes?

etc....

kcole
05-11-2005, 08:27 PM
*Gets ready to make educated guesses based on many years of computer programming*

One thing which most likely makes changes like this much harder for Lightwave is the extensive plug-in architecture, and the huge supply of existant plug-ins. I'm going out on a limb here and guessing that the lion's share of work (especially testing, but possibly coding too) of an average feature change goes towards making sure support for existing plug-ins is maintained. It's not just direct support either - plug-ins interact with each other in a variety of ways.

It boggles the mind how NewTek is able to make release after release and maintain support for plug-ins from so long ago. Sure, sometimes things break, but they're generally fixed quickly, either by NewTek or by the plug-in author.

Not really 100% on topic, just another perspective on LW enhancements.

Surrealist.
05-11-2005, 10:33 PM
Intersting topic. If we knew all that had to be done to really make a program work a lot of us - self included - would be overwhumped.

This is magic, but it's not. It is the result of hard work to bring about a vision.

Without vision there is no purpose for the work. What that work entails to bring about the vision is subordinate to vision. Of course a vision completely out of touch with the estimated effort to bring it off is not productive.

This kind of vision might well be embraced in the area of a plug in. I don't think this vision is that far off. It is certainly not out of sync with what is being done. Maybe lightwave is not in the development stage right now to have something built in but I don't see why a plugin could not be written to take advantage of the deformation features.

If you can use an image map or a procedural to deform a mesh why not some other interface? There is obviously some way to get at the point data in an existing mesh and though maybe it would be a bit of a stretch to put object creation in Layout, I don't think that is what is being asked for here, only deformation data.

It certainly is not out of the realm of possiblility.

I once had a major feature request for a popular editing program. My idea was compelling enough I was actually able to get the head of programming on the phone!

I explained in detail what I wanted. He agreed it was cool and said I could do it in After Effects. I didn't want to do that. I wanted it in the program. He told me not to expect it any tiome soon and gave me the number of a plug in programer , who I contacted and again describned in detail what I wanted via email. We never followed up on the plan.

The next version that came out on that software had my idea in full functionality just as I had requested it. yet at the time I had asked for it it was far ahead. But I could see that the basic tools were just about there in the program. It was not an out of touch request as others wanted it too or it would not have been included. It was something that was already available in competing programs.

The question here is, how much do people want this? I don't think it is that far off the mark. I think it's a good idea and I engourage SCS5 to persue this with a vengence on the proper lines, call newtek, write it up, post it on spinquad and other forums, contact plug in programmers, make it happen. If newtek wont jump on it now, someday they will. Who knows what's in the works? In the mean time it might just have to be in your hands.

DigiLusionist
05-11-2005, 11:18 PM
I, for one, am far more interested in hearing about what could be done, than why it MIGHT be a problem to even try it.

Can-Do attitude or Can't-Won't. Which attitude is part of the user and development team philosophy for LightWave?

prospector
05-12-2005, 12:10 AM
Why is everyone happy with workarounds instead of making the program really powerful?

Everyones not happy with workarounds.

You asked for a way to manipulate objects in Layout like in modeler, and were reminded of a few ways. Are they 'workarounds'? What are they working 'around'?

I would like to see the point manipulations taken a step furthur and be able to make a morph file from it.

Will it happen?
Dunno
but if I thought of it then I am 99 and 44/100% sure some coder at Newtek already did and is either
A working on it
OR
B tried to do it and found out it was just a black hole waiting to be filled by a coders sanity.

So I wait......and work with what is there now.

There are many many ways to do things in LW, I don't think they are workarounds, just different ways.

Limbus
05-12-2005, 01:48 AM
Please add Modeler to Layout or vice versa. Everything else is a work around in my eyes.

Florian

pauland
05-12-2005, 02:00 AM
Clearly you have different eyes to me and a lot of others too..

Captain Obvious
05-12-2005, 02:13 AM
The real reason I prefer Lightwave over anything else is the fact that modelling and seting up the scene are separate (from a user interface point of view, not a technical one). It really makes everything so much easier. One way to (theoretically) solve the problem with editing objects in a scene without actually seeing the scene would be if NewTek combined Layout and Modeler into the same application, but still had the interfaces separate.

How about this? You have a scene set up in Layout, just like now. If you clone an object, all the clones will reflect the changes you make to the original object. If you want to change an object's geometry (in the Modeler part), just double-click (or something) the object and it'll just switch contex to have only modeling tools, just like Modeler today. But how about if it had an option to display the entire scene in the background, with all the clones of the object and all (and probably a bounding box mode on the background to increase performace on complex scenes)? That would make setting up objects correctly easy, and still maintain the advantage of having them separate (again, from a user's point of view, not an engineer's). You don't have to integrate modeling and setup to fix this problem.

Limbus
05-12-2005, 02:25 AM
The real reason I prefer Lightwave over anything else is the fact that modelling and seting up the scene are separate (from a user interface point of view, not a technical one). It really makes everything so much easier. One way to (theoretically) solve the problem with editing objects in a scene without actually seeing the scene would be if NewTek combined Layout and Modeler into the same application, but still had the interfaces separate.


Look at how XSI is doing this. Nice clean interface and it doesnt need a crutch called hub.

Captain Obvious
05-12-2005, 02:37 AM
Look at how XSI is doing this. Nice clean interface and it doesnt need a crutch called hub.
I can't. My PC is dysfunctional. Care to link to some screen shots or something such? A video tutorial showing off the user interface?

Limbus
05-12-2005, 02:55 AM
I can't. My PC is dysfunctional. Care to link to some screen shots or something such? A video tutorial showing off the user interface?
I dont have any screenshots handy but there are some video tut out there. Just cant remember where.
Its basically like this: if you press 1, 2, 3 or 4 you get the interface for model, animate, render and simulate. So only the needed tools are shown.

Exception
05-12-2005, 02:59 AM
I for one am very happy with the separation.
Whats so tough about pressing ALT-TAB? There you go, modeler in full fledge. Its easier than pressing a tab on the layout panel.

If you talk about animating these modeling commands, be aware that this is not something most people will need or use. The absolutely mindboggling amount of work in trying to achieve this probably doesn't justify the limited amount of people that would really benefit from it.

But then again, perhaps you should call Newtek and ask them what their stance is on the subject. We can say all we want, but its not going to change anything.

Captain Obvious
05-12-2005, 03:01 AM
I dont have any screenshots handy but there are some video tut out there. Just cant remember where.
Its basically like this: if you press 1, 2, 3 or 4 you get the interface for model, animate, render and simulate. So only the needed tools are shown.
Well, if you can remember where they are, I would appreciate it.



I for one am very happy with the separation.
Whats so tough about pressing ALT-TAB? There you go, modeler in full fledge. Its easier than pressing a tab on the layout panel.

Even easier for me. I have Layout on virtual desktop #1 and Modeler on virtual desktop #2 (and Photoshop on #3). It's a very nice workflow.

Limbus
05-12-2005, 03:25 AM
I for one am very happy with the separation.
Whats so tough about pressing ALT-TAB? There you go, modeler in full fledge. Its easier than pressing a tab on the layout panel.

If you talk about animating these modeling commands, be aware that this is not something most people will need or use.

Never talked about this. I dont know where you got this from.
But I would like to have:
-camera in modeler
- modeling in layout
- instancing in modeler
- not need to save and save all objects

There are so man workarounds to fix things that would not need to be fixed in a combined app. And than there are the different keyboard shortcuts etc...


The absolutely mindboggling amount of work in trying to achieve this probably doesn't justify the limited amount of people that would really benefit from it.
It seems to me that you are making alot of assumptions.

SCS5
05-12-2005, 05:02 AM
All I’m thinking is another tab on top in Layout that would open a set of modeling tools on the left side of the screen. Bend, Dragnet, Twist, Magnet, Booleans, Etc. Basically, most of the tools in under the Modeler Modify, Multiply, & Construct Tabs All keyframeable. No more complex than Layout is today, just 100 times more powerful.

This way all the people who want to keep it separate can have it that way, but, any one who wants to have the power of both just a keyframe away can have that too. Lets catch up with the rest of the 3D world…. Any thoughts

For every one who wants to keep Layout & Modeler separate, to keep the interface simple, look at my original post above:

One extra tab at the top of the screen to open up all the "new animation tools" on the left side of the screen. That’s all you'd see on the Layout interface. Please understand, I don't want to model in layout I wan to animate in layout using all the modeling tools. Look at all the steps you'd save.

When I have a client come in and look at an Animation and they say " can you just grab that letter on the logo and move it there, or let's just stretch that part of the model some more" they sit back and watch me go to Modeler select the letter cut the letter paste it to a new layer, then back to endomorph to set up the new stretch morph. etc. etc....Save, Again.

Now back to Layout I try to move the letter I cut to a new layer in Modeler, but wait it didn't show up because the hub doesn't understand that there's a new layer in the model that wasn't there when I last saved the scene! Replace the model with it self to fix this, then onto the deformation tools to set the new morph...Does anyone see a workflow problem here?

Vs. Pick the Model tab in Layout, grab the letter, move it, drag the points keyframe these, DONE!!

UnCommonGrafx
05-12-2005, 05:46 AM
Nice strawman...

I would like it, when it comes, but until then... it's what we have.


Your scenario is one of not planning, not a problem in LW. If you have a client watching you do 3D, I would say it's a dog and pony show moment and you OUGHT to show why you are worth all the bucks you are charging: show them two or three programs to discourage changes in the future. bwhahahha


The workflow in 8.3 would be:
- Using textlayer, create your text and select individual layers for the letters to be placed upon. Save
- Take above object into Layout and move as you please. Add bones for some cool effects.

LW is nothing more than Plugin Central as to how its architecture is setup. Based on conversations around here, that would categorize LW as one big workaround. That's just wrong. What you reqeust is there, somewhat, but not to your liking. IF you REALLY want it tomorrow, start talking to some of the plugin writers around here to assist you in realizing your dream.

For each of us that says we don't need it, we, too, would be making great use of such functionality. Until that time, a workaround is best for the mind: make it work for you.

Nemoid
05-12-2005, 05:51 AM
there's no valid point for modeler and layout to be separate.
no real great advantage, the only one being that now u can save objects into a file, and scenes into another kinda file. period.

the best solution would be to make modeler and layout share their toolset. this would open an entire universe out of Lw and u will have the possibility to have modelling tools in layout, camera in modeler and alot of flexibility and much more. also, textures would have to be loaded once instead of two times. and also, among other things writing plugins would be easier.

but this would mean a total overhaul of lw structure, and major changements on the code.
maybe we'll see such a fusion in the future, with some rework of lw core in steps, but i don't see this happen soon.maybe with Lw 9 Nt will start to mix up these things.

mrunion
05-12-2005, 06:29 AM
This is just my humble opinion from having used both kinds (integrated/separate) of tools:

Leave LW as it is. I prefer the tools separated. Makes each easier to maintain and that boils down to quicker development cycles.

Of course a good implementation that has the tools integrated is fine -- Blender is an example. Blender is a GREAT tool! And now that they have Soft-bodies, fibers and many other things, it's an even more powerful package. Heck, they even have a nonlinear editor integrated with it for scene transitions or effects, etc. It's pretty awsome!

Anyway, to stay on topic, my opinion is to leave them separate. I don't want to model when I'm animating, and I don't want to animate when I'm modelling. If I forget to do something to a model, I go back to modeller. Next time I bet I remember! If it's something that I couldn't plan for, I just click on the "Modeler" button and fix it. Simple.

mattclary
05-12-2005, 06:49 AM
Dear Ford Motor Corporation:
I own a Ford Ranger. Whenever I load my wife and child in the back of my truck to go to the grocery store and it's raining, they get wet. Now I don't like the "workaround" of getting a camper shell that you suggested. It is completely unacceptable, as I often have to haul ladders and other construction equipment in the bed of my truck!

Dear valued customer:
Have you considered purchasing a mini-van?

SCS5
05-12-2005, 07:06 AM
mrunion, look at my post...Best of both worlds!..They ARE SEPERATE!! Just a MODEL tab on the top of Layout adding more animation options! How about calling it the "really fast animation workflow" tab?

Robert,
As for the comment abut poor planning, Most of the logos I animate have single layers for the logo it self + extra layers for other logo elements. To put every letter of a logo in a separate layer just in case a client wants to make a change is kinda clunky. & a waist of layers.

2nd ... the dog & pony show....... I don't animate in front of clients, but I do have clients come into the studio to approve their animations, and they do make changes! Instead of discouraging the changes, how much happier is the client if I can just go, OK, I'll just do this & this, DONE! Thank you very much....Here's the bill$$$$$

...I know there are ways to do these things now, All I'm saying is there are also much faster ways to do things if NT makes some UI changes.

Like I said at the top, Best of both worlds, Separate, but together.

SCS5
05-12-2005, 07:20 AM
Well let’s think about this. Ford made the Truck. People need a fix to keep them dry, so they added a cap for the back. Then they realized that if they combined the cap and the truck everything would work more efficiently and be easier to use So they made the Minivan and it out sold the truck/cap combo 10 fold....Best of both worlds......Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

Ztreem
05-12-2005, 07:34 AM
SCS5: I hear you! I also want more deformation tools in layout. I think almost every character animator out there using LW want it too.

Nemoid
05-12-2005, 07:38 AM
well sure we could buy another car, but in this case ford sells only one type of car.

we can work in Lw the way it is now for sure.and produce great art right now.working into a linear way.

but we must look around, and the market demonstrates that integrated apps are better, even when composed by different modules like c4d.

both c4d and xsi show a clever organization so that u have the tools u need at your disposal when its the case. and they show great flexibility in the cases described above.

this is a more modern approach IMO that should be considered by Nt. but maybe while we're discussing of these things, the dev team is working to give us those things someday.
in the meanwhile we enjoy using lw as it is : :)

Limbus
05-12-2005, 07:42 AM
This is just my humble opinion from having used both kinds (integrated/separate) of tools:

Leave LW as it is. I prefer the tools separated. Makes each easier to maintain and that boils down to quicker development cycles.


Not really. It is the other way around. Development time that went into stuff like skelegons and the hub could have been saved and there are some tools that are implemented in both like the surface editor. In on app you would not have to implement these functions in two apps.

And implementing modeler tools in layout is wasting development time again.

toonafish
05-12-2005, 08:47 AM
Well, if newtek would fix SockMonkey and make it work with bones we would have clusters and you could animate points that way. At this time Sockmonkey is just one of those half baked tools nobody ever uses which really is a shame.

Maybe an idea for the next update instead of a silly text layers tool :-)

Carm3D
05-12-2005, 12:39 PM
If I had my way modeler and layout would remain seperate, but point editing would be added to Layout (with information recorded local to bones) so smartskinning would be on-tap.

Trev.T
05-12-2005, 12:48 PM
Didn't FI's MiniMo do something along the lines of what is being requested? You can move points around on a model in a window, which could then be saved as a endomorph or transformed object. If this could be expanded apon, so that you could use modeler like tools at different keyframes and the results saved to a mdd file, you could have model deformation in Layout without breaking the original model for Modeler.

Matt
05-12-2005, 01:24 PM
Are they 'workarounds'? What are they working 'around'?

The ability to do it properly!

;)

Pavlov
05-12-2005, 03:49 PM
I think i've been on this many times but i'll repeat: merge the modules.
I can understand people feeling good with 2 apps, Lw is a safe, simple tool.
There are many workaround for almost all things but they *are* workaround.
Using a shader to perform animated booleans is not straightforward, growing/evolving object in LW is not straightforward.
Camera modeling is often needed to tweak a shot, deformators are there but in a different implementation - which gives a truly poor feeling to LW. "Bend tool" should be the same in both apps, so put the same vidget in layout and activate extremities as keyframable points. The same goes for many tools.
Then let's give a look at LW's surfacing workflow; model, apply UV and apply some other textures in modeler (because of UVs, Textureguide and many other tools). Go to Layout to check how does layering looks with your lighting. UV is not good ? Back to Modeler and move it a bit (without knowing how much, because you just saw it in camera view), then back here to check it again. We are used to this and it "works", but it's indeed a poor surfacing workflow.
Often i need a temporary object in a scene; Switch, model it and save it. What about drawing them on the fly as we need them in layout, maybe in Camera View ?
I could go on with examples if someone think it's useful to demonstrate how heavily separation hits Lightwave.
Let's not go further on an even bigger can of worms: weightmaps editing, skinning, bone tweaking, morphmaps creation and refining, and a bunch of other things.
Not only deformation issues, sometime objects should *evolve* which means a dynamic point/poly count in Layout. We have Obj replacement and tons of tricks/plugs which do this and that, but there are much better ways.
(... so on for a thousand lines).
My personal PoV is, again, merge those modules. All big apps work this way, there should be a reason if Max, Maya, Xsi, Cinema have all gone through a rewrite and none of these have been split in two apps. Having all tools working in a solid, unique, modern environment opens more possibilities than hundred of features added. I understand it's difficult to do, but i hope to see it happen in steps because one day it will be mandatory to keep updating tools. Now it's difficult, tomorrow it will become impossible.
Keep the good work,

Paolo Zambrini

Ztreem
05-12-2005, 04:00 PM
Pavlov: What can I say... I totaly agree with you.
Merge Modeler and Layout into Lightwave! :D

byte_fx
05-12-2005, 06:15 PM
IMHO making Lightwave all-in-one is wrong in many, many ways.

For one - program bloat. Consider the amount of ram that would be required to have everything in a single app. It would be more than the current amount needed to have both Layout and Modeler open. Now add in the features Newtek has planned that will add even more to the program size. (btw - I'm all for the way Newtek is adding features - just keep two seperate apps)

I like being able to net render on one cpu (with it's low overhead) while modeling on the other cpu - with the low overhead of modeler alone compared to that of a one size fits all Lightwave. Something to consider for those that use 32 bit operating systems and two gig of ram. Granted XP and Server 2003 can access more than 2 gig of ram - but many people are limited to 2 gig of ram on their mb's. So figure in the cost of some new systems.

For another - although it might be possible I suspect the interface would wind up a nightmare. Might as well move to a heavier duty app - and I don't mean MAX.

Speaking of which - I've tried MAX, XSI, and Maya. Of those three Maya was the only one I actually managed to model and render a scene with. The other two were a complete waste of time for me. I know others say they like them - but they're not for me. Too clunky.

Then there's all those plugins - both free and commercial - we all love. Chances are some or all of those would no longer work Some of the folks that provide the freebies probably wouldn't bother re-coding them. And get rerady to shell out some cash to replace your commercial plugins, aftermarket renderers, etc. Feel like spending $1500 or so for a new version of Realflow?

When I discovered Lightwave 3.5 it was nirvana. At last a 3d app that had a simple, intuitive interface that masked powerful features. All my other 3d apps at the time - 3Demon. Real3D, Truespace and Imagine - and their clunky. all-in-one approach became history three days later when I nuked and repaved the hard drive to get rid of any of their traces.

I've been cuirious if a ot of the updates Newtek has been doing - which include a lot of core code rewrite - are aimed at combining Lightwave in a single app. Maybe with lightwave [9]?

byte_fx

brunoco
05-12-2005, 06:31 PM
MY two cents :

I have stayed for years with LIghtwave because of the sole reasons its a split system (layout and modeler). If newtek ever decides to merge them i hope they will give us a choice install as seperate or fused.

I hope they choose for a option like this.

Many want it merged by many like the seperate way. Respect both kind of users.

thanks,

SCS5
05-12-2005, 08:58 PM
To all the people who want to keep lightwave separate, LOOK AT MY ORIGINAL POST!!! Although personally I'd like to see them merged, all I'm saying is add a NEW TAB TO THE TOP OF LAYOUT that would add literally 100s more animation options, and eliminate dozens of steps to accomplish simple tasks!! Think of being able to animate all the options in the Modify, Multiply & Construct Tabs in Modeler. Have objects build themselves, animated Booleans, Have extrusions grow, (Animated Magic Bevel comes to mind) Move any points any time any where, Grab portions or pieces of an object in the same layer and animate it without having to create new layers to separate portions. How could manipulating and animating all the changes right there, in layout the same way you can manipulate it in Modeler be a bad thing! If anyone out there can tell me why having Lightwave 10 times more powerful, faster, and easier to animate in is a bad thing, then I'm all ears. And again to all the people who want it separate with my Tab idea, IT IS!!

I'm not getting down on Lightwave; I've used it for years. I just want to see it grow into a faster, easier to use, more powerful animation tool.

Ztreem
05-13-2005, 12:44 AM
I think it's a super idea, for me it doesn't matter if LW is two apps or one, as long as it works in a easy and powerful way. I would love to see that model animation tab in LW, maybe a make surface tool in layout too, so if you clone an object you could change the surface of the cloned object.

Limbus
05-13-2005, 02:05 AM
IMHO making Lightwave all-in-one is wrong in many, many ways.

For one - program bloat. Consider the amount of ram that would be required to have everything in a single app. It would be more than the current amount needed to have both Layout and Modeler open. Now add in the features Newtek has planned that will add even more to the program size. (btw - I'm all for the way Newtek is adding features - just keep two seperate apps)

I think this is wrong. It would be the other way around. One app would only need to load texture maps once, not twice. All redundant tools like move, rotate etc... are loaded twice now. And one app would get rid of all the tools that are now included to aid in working with two apps. One app would require less ram not more.

Florian

Captain Obvious
05-13-2005, 02:20 AM
All redundant tools like move, rotate etc... are loaded twice now.
Move and rotate in Modeler doesn't work in the same way move and rotate in Layout does, and nor should they.


If you do integrate it... What should be keyframed changes, what should be changes to the base model? If I decide I want to tweak the nose in frame 150, will the nose in frame 40 change too? If I want to move an object in local space, how would I do that? In order for more integration to work, NewTek needs to figure out a way to make it very easy to make both keyframed geometric changes (saved with the scene) and changes to the actual object (saved with the object, obviously). It's not like they can just slap the two together and expect a user interface that makes sense.

Limbus
05-13-2005, 03:31 AM
Move and rotate in Modeler doesn't work in the same way move and rotate in Layout does, and nor should they.


If you do integrate it... What should be keyframed changes, what should be changes to the base model? If I decide I want to tweak the nose in frame 150, will the nose in frame 40 change too? If I want to move an object in local space, how would I do that? In order for more integration to work, NewTek needs to figure out a way to make it very easy to make both keyframed geometric changes (saved with the scene) and changes to the actual object (saved with the object, obviously). It's not like they can just slap the two together and expect a user interface that makes sense.

XSI does this very elegantly without having two apps. With a press of a key you could switch between modelling and animating but still would not need to have two apps with all the difficulties that this brings with it.

P.S.: There are other integrated apps out there that are not bloat software.

Nemoid
05-13-2005, 03:59 AM
the ideal environment could be to have shared toolset, but diffrent kinda files to be saved as well. so, for example : u want to model : u go into modelling compartment (modeler) and work as u do now and u have the possibility to save your model. geometry as u do now.

then , u can edit changements in the model it while animating. u keyframe changements from frame o and so why the nose should not update only at the frame
u want ? u coul use the deformations to link them to bone loca rotations so that they appear only when needed.
another cool thing. use modeler's selection system to edit things and deformations, directly and easy and intuitive. airbrush maybe in some cases. paint weights directly into your model, even if rigged.

there's a whole univers of advanatages wich could come from such an integration. really.

to conclude :scene instead could be a pointer like now. we don't have to forget advantages when we have some. ;)

Pavlov
05-13-2005, 04:06 AM
Well:

- Byte-FX: ram issue.. cmon, 2 GB are becoming a standard, and now you have to load all images/objs twice. I think merging would improve ram usage, instead of hitting it.
Multiple CPU usage: if NT will make Render engine a plugin class (mandatory, imho)
you will be able to render in a window and model in another.
Plugin updating: true, but i thinkit's a common developer's task keeping updating their products. Again, *many* plugins nedded by now would become useless in a merged environment.

-Captain obvious: to keep modeling infos and Obj infos separate, we need just to add a "geometry/object" switch button; depending on which one is active, all actions will be performed on model itself (what happens now in modeler), or on object as entity (like current Layout). It's the way Maya work, very straightforward.

Imho, most arguments from "separate" part are easily adjustable in a bunch of different ways. It just depends on how they will do it.

Paolo Zambrini

SCS5
05-13-2005, 05:39 AM
Move and rotate in Modeler doesn't work in the same way move and rotate in Layout does, and nor should they.


If you do integrate it... What should be keyframed changes, what should be changes to the base model? If I decide I want to tweak the nose in frame 150, will the nose in frame 40 change too? If I want to move an object in local space, how would I do that? In order for more integration to work, NewTek needs to figure out a way to make it very easy to make both keyframed geometric changes (saved with the scene) and changes to the actual object (saved with the object, obviously). It's not like they can just slap the two together and expect a user interface that makes sense.


If you set a keyframe at frame 150 the nose will change from wherever the last keyframe before it was, just like it does now. If you're working and you decide you want the nose to wiggle for 20 frames, you just keyframe frame 140 drag points left a little keyframe frame 150, drag points right keyframe 160 drag points left, done! No endomorphs! If you want to move a model in local space, switch to local mode grab whatever part of the model you want to move and move it! Remember, if this was implemented, you could grab portions of the model IN THE SAME LAYER and animate those parts separately from the other parts in that same layer. And yes, it would only affect the object for this scene. Not exactly rocket science, and allot faster and easier to do than it is now. Or you could have a separate "morph mode" where you’re just setting keyframes for object morphs separate from the standard "move, rotate, scale, etc. These could be saved with the model itself. But, you're doing all this in Layout, on the fly! Got an idea? Do it in Layout, and move on! Model in Modeler, Animate in Layout, isn't that how it's supposed to work. Right now you animate in Modeler what you can't animate in Layout because of all the restrictions. As for old plugins not working anymore? YOU WOULD'NT NEED THEM ANY MORE BECAUSE YOU COULD NOW DO ALL THE THINGS LIGHTWAVE NEEDS PLUGINS (WORKAROUNDS) FOR!

Think about it. The reason you have to use endomorphs in the first place is because you can't just model those changes in layout and then keyframe them.

faulknermano
05-13-2005, 08:11 AM
personally, i agree with SCS5's suggestion that Layout should have "modelling tools".

i dont necessarily agree that Layout and Modeler should be merged. but i do agree that layout should have point, polygon and other kinds of tools to manipulate objects on a component level. of course, i'd ask for more, even more than what modeler gives.

i dont think, just because we're putting "modelling tools" in layout, that we are merging two apps. it is correct to say, in one sense, that Layout and Modeler "merged" may cause clutter. that is a good reason why Modeler should NOT disappear. why should it? why should improvements in Layout be a cause of Modeler's disappearance? why not just improve Layout and improve Modeler?

i agree with the workflow: model in Modeler, and animate in Layout. unfortunately, Layout is not as good as an "animator" as Modeler is a "modeler." (but that is only my personal opinion, of course!).

real-life example: i model exclusively in LW Modeler, but i do all my set-ups in Maya. right now, i have this simple character i need to animate. i've rigged it already, expression tied in, morphs done. BUT: if there is any change i'm going to modify the model, i'm WILL NOT dare start pulling those weighted vertices. i'm going to go to my reference file and do it there. why? because it pulling points MAY cause problems in the tweak history. i developed a rule, through bad experience, not to do that.

i dont think "merging" apps is the solution, though it MAY be. i wouldnt know. i think, as i have before, and for the nth time reiterate it, improve the defined function of the app. Layout was meant to animate things, not model them. Layout was meant to set-up character rigs, light rigs, or 3d scenes. get tools in to make those things much easier to do. if it requires tasks that seem to be in the realm of Modeler, who cares? put it in. what if we need, in order to set up a cross-street scene, a cylinder? put a Create Cylinder command there. if you want, detail it in Modeler. or you can pull points in Layout.

as for Modeler, there is no doubt in mind. most of the great modelers are those that are COMMITTED MODELERS. Wings3D, ZBrush, silo and modo come to mind. i'm not saying that Maya's no good for modelling. it's just that, in my opinion / experience, modelling something requires a totally different tool set from animating. (although that may not apply the other way around!). that's why i think that no matter how good Layout becomes (and please take note that i use Maya mostly) modelling is a totally different aspect that is best served with a dedicated workspace. currently, LW's modeler is the best modelling workspace i've used.

faulknermano
05-13-2005, 08:24 AM
If you set a keyframe at frame 150 the nose will change from wherever the last keyframe before it was, just like it does now. If you're working and you decide you want the nose to wiggle for 20 frames, you just keyframe frame 140 drag points left a little keyframe frame 150, drag points right keyframe 160 drag points left, done!

i dont think anyone is realistically using mesh-point animation since PowerAnimator. :D i just dont think mesh-point animation is practical anymore. there are just too many headaches associated with it (i know: i've tried using them in Maya)

in the case of the wiggling nose, i think that problem is best served with bones OR, if you want lattices, which unfortunately must be "simulated" in Layout using bones. however, the very item type used to simulate lattices (e.g. bones) make them incapable of being influenced by other deformers, such as MD_MetaPlug.

however, SCS5, you do make your point: lattices are composed of their points that are "willing" to be influenced by other lattices, which, in turn, can be influenced by other lattices as well. i think point manipulation, as well as polygon manipulation, is something that will change the face of Layout if it happens.

SCS5
05-13-2005, 11:20 AM
I think this sums all this up. How many times has anyone ever heard someone say I modeled this in XSI, Maya, Max, whatever.......But I animated it in Lightwave...........Never! .................That's why I started this post.

lardbros
05-13-2005, 02:46 PM
Think about it. The reason you have to use endomorphs in the first place is because you can't just model those changes in layout and then keyframe them.

COMPLETELY disagree with this comment. Surely you realise how many other software users are still, yes still, drooling over LW endomorphs?? Have you ever tried to animate any lipsync within MAX while using character studio?? U have to have a separate head object for EVERY single morph target. Not only does this use up sooo much time, but it just wastes a HUGE amount of memory for objects that dont really need to be there. Who in their right mind animates lip syncing by animating points that they select and move while they're going?

ANYWAY.... i agree with all the other comments you have made, LW does need some kind of integrating, and it doesn't have to be as harsh as some may think. All i wish for is a single chunk of RAM to be used rather than twice the amount for each app!

toby
05-13-2005, 03:54 PM
The only way I'd like it is if Modeler were completely invisible and still saved separate object files. I don't want my scenes bloated with geometry any more than I want the texture maps saved with it, and like how spartan Layout is - it starts up fast and takes few resources by itself. If I were a modeler I wouldn't want a 'slider' at the bottom of the window either :p

I also love the fact that we essentially get twice as many keyboard shortcuts - Modeler alone takes the whole keyboard.

SCS5
05-13-2005, 04:43 PM
Lardbros, I agree with you about endomorphs and lip sync, etc. I was just trying to make a point. I'm not talking about eliminating it. But, wouldn’t it be nice if you could add to the endomorphs from within Layout......I just want some alternatives for making quick contagious changes in Layout....

SCS5
05-13-2005, 04:47 PM
I just want some alternatives for making quick contagious changes in Layout....

What did I just Say?

lardbros
05-13-2005, 05:10 PM
Oh, i get ya.... i agree with you... being able to alter things within one standalone app could up the productivity. One thing i do like at the moment is being able to constantly keep adding to a library of objects. Everytime i make an object it's a standalone file unlike most other programs, and i think this is where LW excels.

I just like the idea of Lightwave just being slightly more integrated, almost like half integrated or something?? BUT being able to keyframe modelling operations calls for a history/operator stack i would have thought? And i always found having to press a button that says "animate", in order to keyframe whatever you want, a bit awkward. Sometime you never even know when you have even keyframed anything or not.

I'm sure if it was a clear cut answer, and the answer was a definitive YES to the integration, Newtek would have started doing it a long time ago. I reckon there are still pitfalls to both ways of working. File sizes are a major problem for me. I did a VERY simple animation in XSI last yr, only just under 30 seconds, and the file size was around 30 meg. This was just crazy i thought. Although, i zipped it up and it compressed to 5 megs, but still no need.

By no means am i saying that LW is perfect the way it is, but i think it will take quite a bit of genius at newtek in the next couple of yrs!

papou
05-14-2005, 01:28 PM
I like to work with separate modeler and Layout BUT when i have to work with Camera matching... it's a pain.

I need to do a lot a switch and i don't like that very much. The hub is.. very delicate.
So i'd like to see a Camera view in my modeler.
Looks like faster to do that kind of update than a Merged applications.

I prefer to add skelegons to all my points in modeler, convert them in Layout. And move the bones to change the geometry. I prefer that than the way Proton show us.
Because you have an handle on each point and you can move several points. U can align them on xyz, etc...

SCS5
05-14-2005, 07:38 PM
I mostly was shocked how easy some tasks are if you don't have to switch applications


Oliver..........My Point Exactly!!

SCS5
05-17-2005, 08:57 AM
I'd like to put a small fire under Newtek’s butt to encourage LW Layout development. Not just little niche tools hidden under layer after layer, addressing only small segments of the Lightwave community, but tools everyone who uses Lightwave could use from the get go! New Users Too! Like the MODEL TAB IN LAYOUT! How many times has Newtek added tools to Lightwave that no one can find? Also Rethink how all the tools are grouped, & interact.
Deformation plugins with bones, etc. On the menu organization front, 1 example, the Raytrace Shadows button comes to mind, shouldn’t this be with other Light settings or Texture settings?
Or the fact that when you turn on Edge glow you enable it and set a percentage there in textures, and then you have to enable it again under image processing, and set a new percentage & Width! Put it all together!

Any way, I wanted to get everyone who would like to see lightwave more functional and faster to VOTE after reading this post…Yes, or No, to a Modeling Tools Tab in Layout? ………………… NOT MERGE the two, But just an extra Model Tools Tab?

Limbus
05-17-2005, 09:47 AM
Any way, I wanted to get everyone who would like to see lightwave more functional and faster to VOTE after reading this post…Yes, or No, to a Modeling Tools Tab in Layout? ………………… NOT MERGE the two, But just an extra Model Tools Tab?

Please dont put in any more workarounds to solve all the problems that arise just because Layout and modeler are seperate. Fix this once and for all.

Ztreem
05-17-2005, 09:52 AM
I rather take a modeling tab in layout now, instead of waiting for a fully functional and integrated LW 10.

Limbus
05-17-2005, 10:19 AM
I rather take a modeling tab in layout now, instead of waiting for a fully functional and integrated LW 10.

Well, I guess it wont happen now because this also needs development. And I would prefer if this dev time would be spend on a proper solution rather than a workaround.

toby
05-17-2005, 12:07 PM
the Raytrace Shadows button comes to mind, shouldn’t this be with other Light settings or Texture settings?
Why shouldn't it be with other raytrace settings? Besides, it is in Light properties too, so you can have individual or Global control.



Or the fact that when you turn on Edge glow you enable it and set a percentage there in textures, and then you have to enable it again under image processing, and set a new percentage & Width! Put it all together!

Same here, so you can have individual as well as global control.

SCS5
05-17-2005, 07:17 PM
If I turn on Raytraced Shadows & Raytraced reflections, in the Light, & Texture panels, that's already what I want. Why should I have to go to render options to turn these options on again? I can't count how many people missed this combo over the years, and made posts here wondering why it didn't raytrace when they already selected it in Light & Texture properties? Antialiasing, & Soft Filter in Camera Properties? Aren’t these Render Options? Shouldn’t Hypervoxels & Particles be together? …That’s why Layout has such a patched together feel to it! 1 piece here, another there!

Karmacop
05-17-2005, 09:38 PM
I think everything in lightwave makes sense. The only thing that doesn't make sense is the glow stuff. I mean, it makes sense (because of how lightwave works) but they should really find a better way to do glows. The raytraced shadows, anti-aliasing etc all make sense to me.

toby
05-18-2005, 01:46 AM
If I turn on Raytraced Shadows & Raytraced reflections, in the Light, & Texture panels, that's already what I want. Why should I have to go to render options to turn these options on again? I can't count how many people missed this combo over the years, and made posts here wondering why it didn't raytrace when they already selected it in Light & Texture properties?

But if you needed to turn off shadows to make a new scene, to speed up test renders, or to diagnose a render error, you'd have to open and change every light that's set to ray-trace, then write down which ones you changed so that you can restore your original settings, one light at a time. I've had nearly 100 lights in some scenes, some raytraced, some shadow mapped, and some with no shadows.



Antialiasing, & Soft Filter in Camera Properties? Aren’t these Render Options? Shouldn’t Hypervoxels & Particles be together? …That’s why Layout has such a patched together feel to it! 1 piece here, another there!

Well by that token everything in camera properties is a render option! Think of Render options as render engine options, and it makes more sense.
Hypervoxels do not require Particles, they can be added to any object, and Particles can be used without Hypervoxels, to animate a swarm of bees or fireworks for example. Besides, the code is completely different, and developed by different people. Particles are geometry, Hypervoxels are a post-process.

3D apps have to extremely flexible, they are expected to simulate everything in the universe, PLUS anything that the human mind can dream up. Comets and galaxies one minute, a rusty garbage can and bacteria the next, then a bunch of tiny cars that race over a girls body, that still have to look life size and look like they're going 100 mph -
http://www.eagames.com/official/nfs/underground2/us/videos.jsp?platformID=PlayStation%202&setID=E3%20Trailer&resID=hi

To be more flexible, you need more options, and unfortunatley more options means harder to learn. Lightwave is probably the easiest pro-3D app to learn, Maya is about 10 times harder, but it's more flexible.

lardbros
05-18-2005, 04:35 AM
I like the shadow and render options exactly as they are. I'm always thinking about where they could put things to make it easier, and more understandable, and the raytrace shadow options being where they are makes complete sense.

It's like saying: "When i turn on reflections in my surface editor, i want them to show up in the render. The sheer amount of times, i've looked for reflections and they aren't there, because i forgot to turn them on, is unbelievable."

Sometimes, infact most of the time, i'm rendering without an ounce of shadow because it's better for speed. When it comes to lighting i will turn them on, but this comes afterwards.

Again, hypervoxels should be left where they are. I have them as a button under my render tab anyway, along with VIPER.

BUT, although the glow thing makes sense, in the lightwave way and to me, it would be better to have the strength and radius strictly per object, not globally.

SCS5
05-18-2005, 05:03 AM
Then Put the global raytrace shadows button right there in the main Light properties panel, or next to enable shadow maps in he global light properties, where it makes more sense!

I'm not saying throw it all away, I'm just saying take a step back & think about how it's all been organized. Group all the related tools together. This thread started with ideas to improve workflow. This is all related. And I think it could be done better!

If you just keep saying, Well, it works fine now.....Nothing would ever improve!

lardbros
05-18-2005, 06:19 AM
I agree that if something is wrong, then definitely fix it, but i would rather it was in one place than under every single light property.

When test rendering, i keep the render panel open because i like to test things without, Reflection, Shadows, or Refraction... so for me it's in the right place.

Not to say that it isn't in the right place for everyone though. So it's ultimately down to the interface/ergonomics designer.

There are plenty of things that do need fixing, so how about being able to reconstruct all of the menus exactly how the user wants?? With a default setting for everyone reasonably happy with it the way it is. For higher end users it would be invaluable being able to set EXACTLY what features reside in which panels. Yes, it may take some time, initially, to set them up how they are needed, but in the long run would be well worth it.

That way, SCS5 can have it where he wants, and i can put it under in "Utilities-> Plugins-> Additional-> Light Options-> Configure Shadows-> Turn Shadows On/OFF->" if i wanted to. :D

Only prob is that customisable, to that degree, interfaces tend to be a bit twitchy. Who needs the interface crashing the program?..................... when the scene editor can do it just as well! :D

Captain Obvious
05-18-2005, 06:43 AM
It does not make sense to have a global control right next to a specific object control. I like it the way it is: all global raytrace settings in one place, and you can change it for specific objects in their own settings. Would it make sense to put the global system text size setting in NotePad (or TextEdit)? Same thing, essentially.

SCS5
05-18-2005, 07:53 AM
All I'm saying is there are connected pieces scattered all over Layout. There are global settings in the Light panel for Radiosity & Caustics, as well as options for Globally turning on Lens Flairs, etc. Then in the Camera panel you have Global settings for, Antialiasing...On, Off..Motion Blur On, Off.. In the Effects panel under Processing, Global settings for Glow.

Based on what I'm hearing, if you want to do tests (and I do all the time) and turn certain options on or off for test renders. Then shouldn't all these options be in 1 Global Panel? Light Globals, Render Globals, Effects, etc. Why should I have to go to 3 or 4 different places to turn things on or off that all affect the final render, when they should all be in the same location? The Global Panel!
This is just 1 example,

I know there are 100 different ways to get to the same point, I’m just trying to speed the process up a little.

And Yes, I do use FPrime! Thank You Worley Labs!!!

Captain Obvious
05-18-2005, 08:21 AM
There are global settings in the Light panel for Radiosity & Caustics, as well as options for Globally turning on Lens Flairs, etc.
Yes, and I hate that. It does not make sense. The global light settings are not, functionality-wise, tied to any particular light, but you have to access one's properties to reach the global prefs. Bad UI design on NewTek's part.

The camera is a little counter-intuitive, to say the least. You'd think that anti-aliasing settings and such would be on a per-camera basis, since you access them in the camera properties, especially since all settings in the camera properties not related to anti-aliasing are on a per-camera bases. As far as I know, there is no global setting for DOF, motion blur or anything else. Just anti-aliasing.




Then shouldn't all these options be in 1 Global Panel? Light Globals, Render Globals, Effects, etc.
Yes. There should be a "global light settings" where you set up radiosity and ambient and such. Lighting not tied to a particular light.

There should (and is!) a global render settings, where you change raytrace settings and such. Possibly, these two should be in the same window. I'm not entirely sure about that, though... Maya's render panel is a horrible clutter, and Cinema 4D's isn't much better. But then again, Lightwave has less settings when it comes to lighting and rendering, so it might not be an equally big problem.

All in all, it is horrible UI design to have a global setting tied to a specific settings window. But it's equally horrible UI design to just clump together all global settings to a single preferences pane.



Why should I have to go to 3 or 4 different places to turn things on or off that all affect the final render, when they should all be in the same location?
My point exactly.

Gui Lo
05-18-2005, 09:28 AM
I always think it should be a rendering alert for beginners.

Have Transparency, shadows or reflections in a Surface and LW warns you that the rendering setting is not set and these will not be seen in the rendered image.

Captain Obvious
05-18-2005, 10:56 AM
Have Transparency, shadows or reflections in a Surface and LW warns you that the rendering setting is not set and these will not be seen in the rendered image.
But that would be very annoying if you want to render without raytracing.

lardbros
05-18-2005, 11:22 AM
He did say "for beginners" so just change it to Intermediate or Expert and you wouldn't see it. Thats a good idea actually, if newtek are reading this it wouldn't surprise me if this was included.

toonafish
05-18-2005, 12:26 PM
I'd say, go nodal !

just create a render node and stick in any camera, in the node you can set basic settings like resolution and image path. But you can stick in a lensflare node, or a fog node, whatever you like. And you could share some of the nodes with other camera's, or just create new nodes for what you want to change.

Wouldn't it be great to have one Follower node, change the settings to what you like , attach 100 objects to the node and you just have to change the settings once if you need to instead of 100 times. Same goes with shader plugins, the amount of mouseclicks would drop to 10% of what we are used to .

Besides that it's much easyer to experiment. If you like a setting but want to try something else, just copy the node, change the settings, and if you want to go back, just re-attach the object to the first node.

It kind of would work the way expressions function on the Graph editor, create one expression and attach as many channels as you like. Much better then the expressions in the motion modifier panel.

okay, I know it sounds too much like Maya. So I'll better duck an cover ;-)

Captain Obvious
05-18-2005, 01:56 PM
After using Shadermaker Pro (http://www.pixels3d.com/), I've fallen in love with nodal editing.

toby
05-18-2005, 04:54 PM
Yes, and I hate that. It does not make sense. The global light settings are not, functionality-wise, tied to any particular light, but you have to access one's properties to reach the global prefs. Bad UI design on NewTek's part.

You don't 'have to', it's just a short-cut, you can use the menu or a hot-key to get to the panel. I've had it keyed to F7 for years.

There's absolutely no way for Newtek to design a UI that EVERYBODY thinks is just right. Should ray-traced shadows be in the ray-trace panel or the shadow panel? It's completely a matter of preference, and you can't satisfy everybody's preference at the same time.

If you guys don't customize your interface, you don't know what you're missing! I think it's alt-F10 for customizing menus and alt-F11 for keyboard shortcuts(?)

Nemoid
05-19-2005, 04:37 AM
personally, i agree with SCS5's suggestion that Layout should have "modelling tools".

i dont necessarily agree that Layout and Modeler should be merged. but i do agree that layout should have point, polygon and other kinds of tools to manipulate objects on a component level. of course, i'd ask for more, even more than what modeler gives.

i dont think, just because we're putting "modelling tools" in layout, that we are merging two apps. it is correct to say, in one sense, that Layout and Modeler "merged" may cause clutter. that is a good reason why Modeler should NOT disappear. why should it? why should improvements in Layout be a cause of Modeler's disappearance? why not just improve Layout and improve Modeler?

i agree with the workflow: model in Modeler, and animate in Layout. unfortunately, Layout is not as good as an "animator" as Modeler is a "modeler." (but that is only my personal opinion, of course!).

real-life example: i model exclusively in LW Modeler, but i do all my set-ups in Maya. right now, i have this simple character i need to animate. i've rigged it already, expression tied in, morphs done. BUT: if there is any change i'm going to modify the model, i'm WILL NOT dare start pulling those weighted vertices. i'm going to go to my reference file and do it there. why? because it pulling points MAY cause problems in the tweak history. i developed a rule, through bad experience, not to do that.

i dont think "merging" apps is the solution, though it MAY be. i wouldnt know. i think, as i have before, and for the nth time reiterate it, improve the defined function of the app. Layout was meant to animate things, not model them. Layout was meant to set-up character rigs, light rigs, or 3d scenes. get tools in to make those things much easier to do. if it requires tasks that seem to be in the realm of Modeler, who cares? put it in. what if we need, in order to set up a cross-street scene, a cylinder? put a Create Cylinder command there. if you want, detail it in Modeler. or you can pull points in Layout.

as for Modeler, there is no doubt in mind. most of the great modelers are those that are COMMITTED MODELERS. Wings3D, ZBrush, silo and modo come to mind. i'm not saying that Maya's no good for modelling. it's just that, in my opinion / experience, modelling something requires a totally different tool set from animating. (although that may not apply the other way around!). that's why i think that no matter how good Layout becomes (and please take note that i use Maya mostly) modelling is a totally different aspect that is best served with a dedicated workspace. currently, LW's modeler is the best modelling workspace i've used.
nope to me its just a mater to update toolset into a good way. years ago there were no edges in many progs and also n gons and other features. lw was one of the best modelers out there. so there's no reason to make gmodeler grow in better and have many features that make our work easier.

also there's not any valid reason to not integrate the app. many are the advantages, and very few could be the obstacles.that's why many apps were recompiled in the past.
it's basically a problem of compilating a good core and base structure for the app, and introducing common tools.
fact is : this could take a long time and alot of efforts for sure, that we dunno if nt can afford now.

adding modelling tools to layout could be great. but it would result into a duplication of the toolset, so more code to add. its not a bad idea, and can be done as a temporary solution, but it doesn't solve problems a their roots.
just like skelegons did.
look now .: we have bone tools,(even they should be faster) and this should have been the way since the start. :)

SCS5
05-19-2005, 08:55 AM
Nemoid, I agree with you. The main reason I said just add the "Model Tab " Was to add the functionality of combining the two apps., but, at the same time keeping all the people who want to keep em seperate happy.

Personaly I'd like to see them merged. If they merged, Keeping things uncluttered is simple, it would just be a few more modeler tabs on the top of the screen. But as you know, 100s of times more powerfull!!!
Why an extra 5 or 6 extra tabs on top of the screen bothers people so much, I have no idea??

Then maybe all the people who left Lightwave because of ALL THE THINGS LAYOUT CAN'T DO BECAUSE IT'S SEPERATE!!!would come back to Lightwave because of all the NEW THINGS IT CAN DO!

Gui Lo
05-19-2005, 05:56 PM
SCS5, you make it sound so easy.

Combine layout and modeller would mean a huge rewrite, correct?


It is not a matter of making modelling tools available in Layout since these would just allow the user to model static geometry that then cannot animate much. Simply plugging modelling tools into layout will not magically give them animation properties.

When you say modelling tools you mean animation tools, it is about making the geometry move.right?

Really, I think what is needed is a better animation toolset. Once our model is in Layout we should be able to manipulate any part of it including adding or deleting geometry, leaving the lwo file intact.

If we think up new animation tools allowing us to control point, edge, surface, etc then they can be more powerful and much easier to use than simply rewriting modelling tools for animation.

Gui Lo

SCS5
05-20-2005, 04:52 AM
I know it's a huge project & that's probably why Newtek has never done it. And yes, you are right, it is about manipulating the model after it's in Layout! I think I was just taking the buldozer aproach :D What ever it takes, Let's just get Layout up to the same standards as Modeler! I'd love to hear someone say I modeled this in Maya. but I Animated it in Lightwave!

faulknermano
05-20-2005, 06:48 AM
adding modelling tools to layout could be great. but it would result into a duplication of the toolset, so more code to add. its not a bad idea, and can be done as a temporary solution, but it doesn't solve problems a their roots.
just like skelegons did.
look now .: we have bone tools,(even they should be faster) and this should have been the way since the start.

it's not "more code to add", it's totally a different code.

the reason why i like Modeler is because of a dedicated workspace. that is why, even using Maya, which is a very good and flexible animation tool (and even an extensible modelling tool), i still prefer modelling in LightWave. a tool is dependent upon its purpose. i agree that "modelling tools" should be animatable. but creating a toolset for a dedicated modeller that contains the same tools is not duplication, because as a 3d modeler, one does not need to animate, but rather model.

"merge the apps" if newtek wills. but that's just wordplay. what i suppose they're going to do is rewrite ALOT of the code to start from a totally different premise. i'm cool with that, of course! who wouldnt be? but the feature of an dedicated modelling workspace is, by itself, a feature.

now, i hear the XSI has this special modelling mode thingy. if i hear modo, silo, wings3d and / or lw users say that they prefer modelling in XSI because of its workspace as opposed to those four apps i just mentioned, then i say go for it and pattern the workspace after XSI (because Maya's modelling workspace is not very good compared to LW).

but if not, i say continue development of the LW Modeler. "Merge the apps", but develop Modeler on its own. i believe it deserves its continuing development.

RangTang
05-20-2005, 09:15 AM
One thing I agree with is that I don't like having to model and animate in two different programs, and that anything to do with animating should be in Layout, ie point morphing and skeletons.
What is at the root of the confusion for me is the file structure. I rather have the files setup as project based with all the lwo, lws, and textures in the same folder.

sbowling
08-24-2005, 10:50 PM
Then maybe all the people who left Lightwave because of ALL THE THINGS LAYOUT CAN'T DO BECAUSE IT'S SEPERATE!!!would come back to Lightwave because of all the NEW THINGS IT CAN DO!


They may come back, but as soon as they realize that there's still no real undo in layout, they'll leave again. The bigges problem I have with layout is that if I screw something up in the new scene editor (use delete instead of erase) I have to reload my scene from where I last saved. The only thing that really seems to be undoable is manually added keyframes and this doesn't even seem to work all the time.

Karmacop
08-25-2005, 01:25 AM
They may come back, but as soon as they realize that there's still no real undo in layout, they'll leave again.

Yeah, it's a good thing whoever coded the layout undo is gone! i mean how many years and versions did we ask for multiple undos in layout? Then the new devs added in multiple keyframe undos within one version. Can't wait till they have some more time to improve the undos more.

lardbros
08-25-2005, 08:38 AM
I don't just want multiple undos for the keytrack (which as yet it doesn't, and is very annoying) but for everything... including the surface editor. Imagine how many scrapes it would get you out of having an infinite number of undos (if possible) while you're working in the surface editor or removing objects from a scene to realise that you didn't save after you created your IK rigs and want the object you just removed back exactly where it was. There are ways round it, but an undo would make life so much easier.

JMarc
08-25-2005, 11:10 AM
it's not "more code to add", it's totally a different code.
(SNIP)
"merge the apps" if newtek wills. but that's just wordplay. what i suppose they're going to do is rewrite ALOT of the code to start from a totally different premise.

Wrong there actually. From what Deuce told me at Siggraph, Newtek is taking (I guess I shouldn't say "all" so...) some of the existing Modeler tools and breaking them out into a separate DLL just like they have already done with the renderer. This way the DLL can be called from Modeler or Layout. No new code necessary (for existing tools). No redundancy in the programming side; both apps use same code, just add a button with the ability to call the tools from the shared DLL. The user chooses where to use the tools, either in Modeler or in Layout. Can you say Render in Modeler? (oops did I say that out loud?)

I am led to believe that modelling tools probably won't be animatable, at least not at first. I hope I'm wrong.

Jean Marc Rodrigue

SCS5
08-25-2005, 11:40 AM
7THANK YOU NEWTEK!!! This is the BEST NEWS since Lightwave standalone version 3.5!! Finally, some Layout & Modeler integration..Lets see some of those "Modeling Tools in Layout" in action......Any Demo shots or Videos? :thumbsup:

Pavlov
08-25-2005, 01:59 PM
I am led to believe that modelling tools probably won't be animatable, at least not at first. I hope I'm wrong.
Jean Marc Rodrigue

I'm one of the hardest "unifiers", i hope NT will do this well.
Modeler tools "subset" is kinda a dangerous statement.
I fear (and hope not!) all *deformation* tools will be integrated, but oll tools changing point count wont.
One of Layout's stronger limitations is the lack of a dynamic geometry engine, which allows for changing point-count dynamically. I dont know how deep they'll work on this, but surely a subset with only deformation tools and not-animatable would be cool but almost useless; a very "first step".
Integration means i can thrash modeler; if i just need to model, i'll stay on frame 0. If i need to animate sweeps, booleans, to make objects grow or whatever, a can simply go at frame "n" and do something with whichever modeling tool.
A real integration will be only when Layout will have access to dynamic point counts, so that all tools which change point order/number (sweeps, booleans, drills, bevels, chamfers and so on) will be in layout and animatable over time.
I really cant guess at which point they're on this direction.
I didnt hear anything about this fact, i hope someone will be able to expand on this.

Paolo Zambrini

SCS5
08-25-2005, 04:36 PM
I can't believe that they would add some form of modeling subset tools to layout and not make them animatable! That's the WHOLE REASON to add these capabilities...Please tell me it aint so!!

colkai
08-26-2005, 03:38 AM
And all the people who promised to leave LW ..... will either install LW 1-8 (9)
Sure you've got the right version there? - I've been hearing that same "Leaving LW" song since LW4.0 :p ;)
I must admit, it will be interesting to see what modelling tools will be in situ by the release. Personally, I'm all for it, the stance Newtek seem to taking of "choose which you prefer", both for modelling in layout/modeller or texturing in layers/nodes is going to appeal to many more than choosing one or the other.

Editing of weight and UV maps in layout would be a big boon, especially if your running FPrime and can see those tweaks in real-time feedback. Should be interesting to see how it all comes together. Colour me hopeful :D

colkai
08-26-2005, 03:41 AM
I am led to believe that modelling tools probably won't be animatable, at least not at first. I hope I'm wrong.
I think the latter half of your statement is closer to the truth, I am sure I've seen someone comment on the possibility of animatable modelling before, not sure if Larry brought it up. So far, he and Tess seem to be pretty close with their thoughts, hmmm, wonder why? :question: ;)

Wonderpup
08-26-2005, 07:38 AM
Andy Bishop did hint at animatable modeling one of the fantastic demo's he did for Siggraph- he was talking about making bullet impacts by moving points. So I'm sure this must be the intention long term, even if it doesn't show up in 9. It would be nice to get some more 'official' confirmation on this though.

JMarc
08-26-2005, 07:46 AM
I would guess that the ability to add geometry (bevel, extrude, add points, make polys) in Layout might not be available right away since the Newtek press release says they added "mesh editing capabilities to Layout" for LW9. I'm thinking you could only tweak existing geometry (move points and polys over time, taper, shear, twirl) not add new geometry. Just guessing here. Who nows what could be accomplished by the end of the year? We'll have to wait and see if they announce anything more specific soon.

LightWave already has EditFX which allows you to do some adjustments to geometry ala point animation.

JMarc
08-26-2005, 08:08 AM
I can't believe that they would add some form of modeling subset tools to layout and not make them animatable! That's the WHOLE REASON to add these capabilities...Please tell me it aint so!!

After re-reding my first post I think I should clarify my opinion a bit. I figure, basic fuctions like moving points/polys will be animatable and hopefully by a more elegant solution than EditFX. I doubt we will get animatable tools like extrudes and lofts right away, though.

Again, I hope I'm wrong here. I've been hoping for full integration for years now.

Jean Marc Rodrigue

SCS5
08-26-2005, 08:37 AM
Let's hope they can give us some great new animation tools in LW9. Maybe if we all hold hands and click our heels together........There's no place like..........................Lightwave9, There's no place like Lightwave9........................................ . :D

evenflcw
08-26-2005, 08:38 AM
Well, acctually using NTs own terminology (from sdk/lscript) "mesh editing" implies adding and removing geometry. To my knowledge, this is something Layout have never been able to do. So announcing it using that exact term must mean that is what were getting. If not, then NT really needs to choose their wordings more carefully in the future (I'll volunteer to proofread any announcements a week in advance :)) Just moving points around (commonly called displacement) we've obviously always been able to do. Bringing in the modeling tools just makes the interface for that so much better.

Bring on LW9!

FIREGIRL
09-08-2005, 04:35 PM
"Originally Posted by Captain Obvious The real reason I prefer Lightwave over anything else is the fact that modelling and seting up the scene are separate (from a user interface point of view, not a technical one). It really makes everything so much easier. One way to (theoretically) solve the problem with editing objects in a scene without actually seeing the scene would be if NewTek combined Layout and Modeler into the same application, but still had the interfaces separate."


Look at how XSI is doing this. Nice clean interface and it doesnt need a crutch called hub.

Limbus is right. I myself have used XSI and it's a fact that both of its layout and modeler functions are fused into one program. Even Maya has done this. I gotta say that simplicity is important to the workflow of any artist and this is best accomplished if say future versions of Lightwave will be able to integrate layout and modeler functions together. That's the reason why so many 3d programs have a single program -- to avoid work-arounds and unnecessary steps such as opening new programs, synchronization, reloading scenes, etc.

Also, one of the many clear advantages that I see of having a fused program is the fact that a user could be able to model his or her objects interactively alongside Fprime's radiosity renderer. In other words, it's kinda like having the ability to modify and create objects using the full array of modeller's tools under an interactive radiosity environment.

This would in my opinion, have the potential to revolutionize the way 3d modeling is done in the future, because if Lightwave's layout and modeler merge into a single program and perhaps Fprime becomes a permanent aspect of Layout, then that would pave the way for modelling interactively with Fprime's radiosity renderer as well. Now since XSI doesn't have something like Fprime, Lightwave would gain a significant advantage over any other 3d package out there (bar Modo 201 when released) if Newtek were to move into this direction (layout/modeler fusion). Anyways that's just my opinion, hope it helps.

Just a clarify, I said that XSI doesn't have something like Fprime (this is true at least to my knowledge, but it has something called "Final Gathering" radiosity which works fast with XSI's Mental Ray Renderer). Although Final Gathering in Mental Ray is fast which enables quick interaction for refinement concerning modeling and scene manipulation, it doesn't have the speed to update radiosity like what Fprime does. Indeed, it can only get better from a marketing perspective, if Lightwave fused its layout and modeller as a single program which would allow for a future version of Fprime to interact with modeler's full set of tools.

Rachel :yingyang:

Wickster
09-08-2005, 05:00 PM
Well to add my valued "opinion" to this discussion. Adding modeling tools to Layout is fine but integrating both programs into one may not be so ideal since I've noticed Animation/Game Studios these days are divided onto groups. "Modelers", "Animators", "Riggers", "Texture Artists" and so on.

If I were to be a Modeler I would love the way modeler is a separate module than layout. That way I won't get confused with all the other tools that the Animator uses. Same thing for animators also, focusing on the Layout and not get Modeler on the way of things.

I guess what I want is a tighter and more stable connection than the Hub. It would even be more cool if you run LW on a shared network where the Modeler artist is running modeler and the Animator is running Layout (if the network is fast enough to handle realtime interaction between the 2 people). Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against having one program as long as it stays on its seperate entity. Maybe one main tab for Layout and one main tab for Modeler. But as of now I love the way LW has seperate modules.

Just a thought.

- Brian

Scott_Blinn
09-08-2005, 07:20 PM
I am leaning more towards keeping a dedicated Modeler around too- though I would also be happy if they were fully merged and I could just put LW into "Classic Modeler" mode to filter out the UI.

As a UI Mode instead of a seperate app it will be easier to share resources in memory (like textures and such) and may cut down on LW's memory usage and improve speed than keeping the apps seperate...

--SB

GraphXs
09-08-2005, 08:44 PM
Why would it be so good to have FPrime render while building a model, what would be the point of that?

I just hope that the modeling tools will be animatable, but by adding that I can't imagine how crazy the graph editor will get. It would have all the channels for move and rotate, that seems like a nightmare to me. It would be great if it allows you to create, tweak and edit Endomorphs in layout. Or use tools like twist for animating or magnet (tools that effect groups of polys or points and then layout would create Endos based on that distortion at any frame.) Ooooooh how about using magic bevel in layout to grow trees. That would rock! :thumbsup:

Lor
09-08-2005, 09:56 PM
Here's my $.02

I'll be delighted to see modeling tools integrated into Layout. Tweaking morph targets can be a pain with two apps. Tons of other little things you do while setting up a scene will be much easier too. But I'd never want to see modeler gone. When all you want to do is model and texture, it's the perfect environment. Way less overhead without all those other tools hanging uselessly around.

IMHO

lor :lwicon:

FIREGIRL
09-08-2005, 10:54 PM
Why would it be so good to have FPrime render while building a model, what would be the point of that?

I do a lot of model tweaking all the time and so if I could modify an object while being able to interactively refer to quick radiosity renders using Fprime as I do revisions on the geometry of the model, should make things that much easier for me to visualize the realism of the model in current construction. Sometimes by relying on the normal environment shading of modeler can be tricky for someone like me to see and fix those very slight mistakes in a model such as organic models (especially heavy meshes). So I think using interactive radiosity as modeler's environment could certainly help my cause (or at least I hope so). Also by integrating both Layout and Modeler together, the ability to make quick revisions using all Lightwave's tools really could improve one's workflow.

-Rachel :lwicon:

DigiLusionist
09-08-2005, 11:07 PM
Wow. I've been gone from this forum for a long time, and nothing's changed much. Folks are still making the "keep them separate" argument. I wonder if there will be mass suicides the day NT finally integrates LW.

toby
09-08-2005, 11:32 PM
You can add my voice :D

Keep 'em separate!

I don't even want to see a modeling tool when I'm in Layout, and I sure as h*ll don't want my precious keyboard shortcuts to be used up by them.

Yea, it could be done with a giant switch for changing from modeling to layout, but I've yet to see anyone do it totally separate, and you guys that want to model while you're animating or rendering wouldn't want that anyway...
:screwy:

DigiLusionist
09-09-2005, 12:37 AM
Um, okay. Case in point.

Pavlov
09-09-2005, 01:23 AM
You can add my voice :D

Keep 'em separate!

I don't even want to see a modeling tool when I'm in Layout, and I sure as h*ll don't want my precious keyboard shortcuts to be used up by them.

Yea, it could be done with a giant switch for changing from modeling to layout, but I've yet to see anyone do it totally separate, and you guys that want to model while you're animating or rendering wouldn't want that anyway...
:screwy:

Apologize, but these are non arguments wawed from too many users, which have had surely a part in threatening LW from growing until now.
It's enough to have Layout shortcuts in Layout, and when you are in "MODEL" tab in Layout, all shortcuts are remapped exactly like modeler. Kinda parallel workspaces.
If there are other valid reasons, i could understand your point.. but this is really a non-argument.
No offense, btw.


Paolo Zambrini

toby
09-09-2005, 02:17 AM
I'm sorry for the :screwy:
I was just kidding, and I love to play with these icons :D

But what I was saying is that the people who want modeling in layout won't want the modeling turned off while thery're rendering or animating, otherwise there's not much point to it. And in my case it would use up a lot more system resources to run, for no reason. I also like to render in the background while I'm modeling.

But this is not an argument about which is better, just my what my preference is and why.

colkai
09-09-2005, 02:35 AM
I still think Newtek have nailed it by providing a non-intergrated integration. :p
What I mean is, from what I've read, we really are going to get the best of both worlds, of course, there is bound to be a memory hit from loading more DLL's, but that's assuming they don't load them dynamically at point of calling the tool, in which case, the memory hit would be less and, in theory, temporary, as the DLL may be dropped once the job is complete.
Of course, I could be talking nonsense here. :p

toonafish
09-09-2005, 03:43 AM
And in my case it would use up a lot more system resources to run, for no reason. I also like to render in the background while I'm modeling.


I'm not the first to mention this, but I just can't resist. So far most of the time LW eats memory as if it were for free. I'm running modeler, layout and Fprime.....that means it loads textures twice and geometry 3 times into memory.
So integration would use less system resources.

The sad thing is after so many revisions of the Hub, modeler and layout are not even 100% compattible . I'm losing reference nulls and enveloped textures all the time when saving an object in modeler after setting up the textures in Layout.

Things can only get better when integrating......in a smart way.

Pavlov
09-09-2005, 04:04 AM
I still think Newtek have nailed it by providing a non-intergrated integration. :p
What I mean is, from what I've read, we really are going to get the best of both worlds

Only if it will be effectively possible to model in Layout.
Drag/deformation tools would add a very little power to LW.

Paolo Zambrini

Nemoid
09-09-2005, 08:03 AM
modelling tools seem to have been put into a separate area for 9.0.

probably there will be a transition period in which modelling tools in Layout will not be at 100% powerful like in modeler, as well as selection )edge selection will probably not be in layout in 9.0 from what i read.)

however we'll have them soon and surely integration between modeler and layout will be more and more tight till reacihng completion somewhere near 9.5. :lwicon:

BTW i am for a complete integration, so i see 9.0 as a fantastic starting point, with modelling tools and rendering in their own areas, and great new features :)

Karmacop
09-09-2005, 08:18 AM
I think the whole separate vs integrated issue isn't well defined because people have different views of what both mean. The people that want to keep it separate usually point to the fact that they want to be able to model and not have to worry about animation getting in the way, and don't want layout to take up memory when it's not needed. What they don't see is that modeler could just be a "window" into Lightwave so that it's still a dedicated modelling program, and layout moduals and plugins wouldn't even need to be loaded, just as plugins work currently with layout, it's only loaded into memory if it's being used.

I know this is a personal opinion, but I hope the future of Lightwave is integrated in the way I've mentioned above.

SCS5
09-09-2005, 08:39 AM
If everyone looks back at the beginning of this thread, All I was thinking was add a NEW TAB at the top of the screen in Layout that would add all the Modeling tools on the left side of the screen. Sculpt, Twist, Bend, Extrude, Bevel, Add points, Drill Booleans, Etc. But, ALL ANIMATABLE!! With some major refinements to the Graph Editor, Splines, Bones & Rigging, Lightwave could finally get back into the “High End Animation Ranks” Personally, I’d like to see more integration, but for the separatists out there, you’d still have your Modeler separate.

However they Implement this,Newtek, BRING IT ON!!!

Trev.T
09-09-2005, 08:49 AM
You can add my voice :D

Keep 'em separate!

I don't even want to see a modeling tool when I'm in Layout, and I sure as h*ll don't want my precious keyboard shortcuts to be used up by them.

Yea, it could be done with a giant switch for changing from modeling to layout, but I've yet to see anyone do it totally separate, and you guys that want to model while you're animating or rendering wouldn't want that anyway...
:screwy:
Aren't they adding 104 new shortcuts in 8.5?

toby
09-09-2005, 10:11 AM
I'm not the first to mention this, but I just can't resist. So far most of the time LW eats memory as if it were for free. I'm running modeler, layout and Fprime.....that means it loads textures twice and geometry 3 times into memory.
So integration would use less system resources.

But if you don't have anything loaded into modeler, and only use it once a week, it's wasting resources to run it.

Nemoid
09-10-2005, 04:03 AM
I think the whole separate vs integrated issue isn't well defined because people have different views of what both mean. The people that want to keep it separate usually point to the fact that they want to be able to model and not have to worry about animation getting in the way, and don't want layout to take up memory when it's not needed. What they don't see is that modeler could just be a "window" into Lightwave so that it's still a dedicated modelling program, and layout moduals and plugins wouldn't even need to be loaded, just as plugins work currently with layout, it's only loaded into memory if it's being used.

I know this is a personal opinion, but I hope the future of Lightwave is integrated in the way I've mentioned above.

agree totally on this.
and if the app is integrated no one stops you from showing/loading only the modelling tools when u need em. so there's no prob on that.

Pavlov
09-10-2005, 05:39 AM
agree totally on this.
and if the app is integrated no one stops you from showing/loading only the modelling tools when u need em. so there's no prob on that.

same here.
I'll be happy when i'll be able to trash modeler icon from my desktop.

Paolo Zambrini

IgnusFast
09-10-2005, 09:43 AM
same here.
I'll be happy when i'll be able to trash modeler icon from my desktop.

Paolo Zambrini


And I'll be happy if at some point they add bones, IK, and lights to Modeler and I can trash the Layout icon. :)

Pavlov
09-10-2005, 09:47 AM
And I'll be happy if at some point they add bones, IK, and lights to Modeler and I can trash the Layout icon. :)

Good idea... they could add layout tools to Modeler and modeler tools to Layout, so everybody would be happy ;))

Paolo

Lor
09-10-2005, 09:58 AM
:agree:

A camera in Modeler would be most helpful.

Pavlov
09-10-2005, 10:04 AM
:agree:

A camera in Modeler would be most helpful.

???
btw i was joking... this would end in 2 identical apps ;)

Paolo

IgnusFast
09-10-2005, 10:25 AM
???
btw i was joking... this would end in 2 identical apps ;)

Paolo

I really do like the separation between Modeler and Layout. But I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Lights and Bones should be an integral part of a model, because for the most part, they are completely scene independant. I just don't like the fact that you have to create a 'dummy' scene to contain a complete model, then load that into whatever 'real' scene in which you're trying to animate it.

As far as Modeler tools in Layout, I wonder just how useful it will be. Flipping to a "model" mode with quad-view could be handy for quick tweaks, but unless they've also added lights and bones to the modeler file format, you'll now have to maintain two different files (the actual model file for the model itself, and the scene file for it's lights and bones) in one application. Could get really messy fast. It could be nice for animating deforming objects, like dynamically cutting a hole in something or crumpling up a tin can, for example.

Anything that increases the usefulness of the toolset is a good thing. Allowing for more flexibility without forcing us to completely change our workflow is a "Really Good Thing (TM)" I'd just like to see some core things changed that would make our lives easier in the long run.

Lor
09-10-2005, 10:30 AM
???
btw i was joking... this would end in 2 identical apps ;)

Paolo

Yeah, but for the price of ONE! :lol:

Scott_Blinn
09-10-2005, 10:30 AM
???
btw i was joking... this would end in 2 identical apps ;)

Paolo

Not sure about a camera in Modeler, but Maya 7's new "view compass" feature is amazing (yet simple)- I would LOVE to see that in Modeler.

If you want to see how it works, go here: http://www.alias.com/eng/products-services/maya/new/demos.shtml

and watch the "Substitute Geometry" flash demo (by the bottom of the page). It is towards the end of the demo, so you'll have to sit through a few minutes first.

Scott_Blinn
09-10-2005, 10:35 AM
While I'm mentioning new Maya features that would be great for LW- I know there are a lot of people that do logos and such with LW. This feature would be very helpful for them!

again, go here: http://www.alias.com/eng/products-services/maya/new/demos.shtml

and watch the "Beveling for Adobe Illustrator Files, with History" flash movie.

Lor
09-10-2005, 10:45 AM
A camera in modeler (ie with a filmback and focal length) would be very useful for those artists who model using photographic reference (ie: a front and side photo). If you can't set the filmback and lens the same as that used for the photography, how can you possibly expect to model a proportionally correct object using photo reference??

lor

toby
09-10-2005, 12:24 PM
Not sure about a camera in Modeler, but Maya 7's new "view compass" feature is amazing (yet simple)- I would LOVE to see that in Modeler.

If you want to see how it works, go here: http://www.alias.com/eng/products-services/maya/new/demos.shtml

and watch the "Substitute Geometry" flash demo (by the bottom of the page). It is towards the end of the demo, so you'll have to sit through a few minutes first.
"Substitute Geometry"... available in Lightwave 6.0, because Layout is separate from Modeler!
Really, could you not do this before Maya 7?

Stooch
09-14-2005, 01:26 PM
Speaking of which - I've tried MAX, XSI, and Maya. Of those three Maya was the only one I actually managed to model and render a scene with. The other two were a complete waste of time for me. I know others say they like them - but they're not for me. Too clunky.

Dont project your personal limitations on others. I have used maya, xsi, 3dsmax, lightwave, messiah, houdini etc. I didnt find any program hard and each one has something its best at. I see too many people arguing whats best FOR THEM, rather thinking about the overall picture. The excuse that combining the program will use more memory is ignorant and unfounded.

If you cant grasp a modeling toolset when combined with animation, you need to learn how to customise your interface and get used to shortcuts. I feel that the program should be combined at the core yet still allow us to have two separate windows for dual monitor setups. There are far more positives then negatives when considering unification. The reason why lightwave is separate is not by design. it is because each one was written by a different programmer, the two original programmers that started this whole thing. and ive been using this since version 4, since then ive used everything on the market and still love lightwave, i am excited that version 9 will be starting along the road of consolidation. if you feel that you will be alienated and refuse to use the program, its your loss.

also this topic is old, every instance is usually full of people who are afraid of change or assume too much.

colkai
09-14-2005, 02:34 PM
Dont project your personal limitations on others. I have used maya, xsi, 3dsmax, lightwave, messiah, houdini etc. I didnt find any program hard and each one has something its best at. I see too many people arguing whats best FOR THEM, rather thinking about the overall picture.

With regards to what particular package folks use, IMHO the whole point of using a particular package is that it suits the individual, thus speeding their work and making their life easier than trying to wrap their head around concepts they struggle with.
Of course, in the context of if LW9 should be "truely" integrated and how people should adapt to that, it's kind of redundant anyway, we will get what we get.
There will be those who will be unhappy that it hasn't gone their way, be it not intergrated enough, or too integrated, such is human nature.
My money is still on Newtek to deliver a happy medium, without totally alienating either side.
Sure, it's bound to take more memory if layout has modeller tools, but hey, one can't have everything, I mean, where would you put it all? :p ;)

RedBull
09-14-2005, 05:06 PM
This an age old debate, and as about as useful as Mac Vs PC....
So i will of course offer my own opinion.... :)

As a long time user of LW, i personally love having them seperated....
Reading many opinions from many artists and developers, over the years
tells me it's really 50/50 on this one...
(Newtek Europes interviews, would confirm this theory, with about half and half for the people interviewed)

I simply love LW over apps like Maya and Max, which i won't touch
because LW gave me the freedom of having seperate workflows for Modeling,
animating....

I do however see that being seperate does have a bunch of downsides
in comparison to integrated applications.... Especially in the sense of plugin
development...

NT will slowley add more Modeler stuff to Layout, it's already happening...
I just hope we just don't lose too much in the translation.

One must also remember that by changing the layout of the program, you
will be directly compared to other integrated apps like XSI, and Maya....
Where as now, i think LW is rather unique and clever for it's differentness :)

Just remember that by intergrating, you will gain a bunch of new features
and improve workflow..... You will in return, lose a bunch of features and inhibit workflow..... So it's will be a tradeoff.....

Something about equal and opposite reactions...

We will of course have this exact same discussion when LW 18 is due....
Of course everybody will be arguing, we need seperate apps to increase workflow... ;) History just repeats in reverse......

XSI is a great and well integrated package, but go and buy XSI......
It already exists, don't try and make a clone of another package...
You are better to keep to the strengths of your own...

Anyway, that's my 2cents worth of reasonably unibased opinion.....

Chuck
09-14-2005, 05:26 PM
Dont project your personal limitations on others.

He didn't - his statement very clearly referred to his own preferences and reactions, and that is in fact what users should do in providing feedback as to how the application could work better for them, and it is your comment in your first sentence that is out of order. Please express your disagreement without the addition of a personal insult, including declaring other folks' opinions "ignorant and unfounded." A simple "It really isn't the case that combining the applications will necessarily increase the memory footprint of the application to a degree that would have a signficant impact on performance capabilities," would have done. Your final strike at the credibility of those who might disagree with you by characterizing them as "people who are afraid of change or assume too much," is also inappropriate and unnecessary.

Per the forum rules, let's keep the discussions to issues, and not personalities.

Kuzey
09-14-2005, 05:48 PM
Hey Chuck,

Can we get a hint as to which path Newtek is taking otherwise this will end up being a 100 plus page thread :jester:

I like the the way I think LW 9 is heading, two separate apps with the render engine, modeling tools etc. all separate modules so either app can take adavantage of all or any tools when it needs them :D

Which is basically the same as a one app program but without damaging it's uniqueness.

Kuzey

Gui Lo
09-14-2005, 06:29 PM
I thought that LW is even more seperate than before.

The renderer is seperate from layout and the modelling tools are seperate so both modeller and layout have access to them.

Are the modelling changes in the layout able to be keyframed?
If so then they can be animated changes and if not then it is basically the same as now.

colkai
09-15-2005, 02:23 AM
Hey Chuck,

Can we get a hint as to which path Newtek is taking otherwise this will end up being a 100 plus page thread :jester:
Hehe,
May be just me, but I found the following quote interesting...

"It really isn't the case that combining the applications will necessarily increase the memory footprint of the application to a degree that would have a signficant impact on performance capabilities,"
I could be reading things into that that are not there, but that sort of tallys with a theory of mine that if the tools are DLL based, the memory footprint would not be that great if the tools were dynamically loaded. That would afford a nice 'best of both worlds' sort of condition. Either way, I am looking forward to the LW9 development more than any release of LW so far, very exciting times and I must extend my congratulations to all involved for the work they are doing. As a coder myself, I am deeply aware of how big a task it is and respect is most assuredly due.

colkai
09-15-2005, 02:25 AM
I thought that LW is even more seperate than before.

The renderer is seperate from layout and the modelling tools are seperate so both modeller and layout have access to them.
Hah!
I never looked at it that way, good one :)
Nothing is integrated, everything is separate, making it so that everything is integrated. Errr.... I mean... :p

Nemoid
09-19-2005, 01:02 PM
I don't agree with the statement that, with integration we would gain alot of features, and loose alot of them as well, especially regarding workflow.

the way an app is structured is ONE thing. the way an app is showed
through its UI is another thing.

so, into an integrated app i could simply save different UI layouts to my heart content, and use one for modelling with all modelling tools, one for animating , like layout is.
but i could also open a timeline in modeler or start making changements into a more layout environment..i could render from modeler to see how my char would look. , etc.
just because it would actually be all part of the same app, only showing/hiding things.

so an user accustomed working the current way, will simply choose to work that way (which can be good as well, because its linear) while other kinda user would choose to work into another/mixed way.
its not always the case going mixed.
its not always the case going linear.

the app would be changed under the hood, but you could show it like it is NOW.

but you'll have :

textures would be loaded once.
geometry too.
memory management would end to be better.
no communication of datas between 2 apps through an Hub (another app)
more compatibility between plugins, and no counter parts of them for modeler.
bones = skelegons. actually, no more skelegons. only bones editable into a fast way, like skelegons do. right now is possible, but could be even quicker.

alot of things that i don't list here cause i'm tired. LOL

and all , made with the cool Lw philosophy. smart, streamlined and fast.

It's possible. :)

Matt
11-29-2006, 05:25 PM
Until NT can add PROPER Modeler support in Layout, I'd say don't bother. The few modeling tools in there (apart from being able to turn sub-patch on and off) are pretty much useless. The only ones that would be useful like plane, cube and sphere aren't even in there!

I mean, how many of you have brought an object into Layout to do a quick test of the surfaces and needed to hop into modeler to create a ground plane so you can have it sit on the floor and cast shadows?

Until it is done right, leave it out, it only hilights the fact that it isn't fully implemented yet, which is embarrassing.

Matt

bobakabob
11-30-2006, 09:17 AM
As with Layers vs Nodes, Newtek appear to be wisely offering users a choice of dedicated Modeller + Layout / Modelling tools hybrid.

Don't wish to start an app war but X*I has an interesting approach where switching to Modelling mode instantly declutters the interface and the emphasis is instantly on - Modelling.

IMO Lightwave's modelling toolset is far more intuitive and it would drastically speed up workflow including it in Layout.

Many times I've brought a model into Layout only to find all its flaws revealed and switching between Modeller and Layout via the Hub can become wearisome and isn't as reliable as it should be.

kyle_r
11-30-2006, 10:06 AM
I was for the separation of the modeler and layout 6 month ago.
Now that i've work with Max for 5 month i'm for only one application.

It is simpler, faster, and open a lot of possibylities.

When you model in Max for instance, you have a simple mode to activate:
Select your object and isolate it. Your scene is still there but you see only your object and there is no slowing down.

You can if you want open a new scene to model only your object and after that export your object in your complet scene with the light and the rest.

In one application you have the advantage of both the modeler and the layout.

But it is only beacause i've work with a one application soft that i can now understand why it is more powerfull than a 2 application soft.

When i'm working back with LW now, i only see the disadvantage of the split application.

toby
12-03-2006, 01:06 PM
I was for the separation of the modeler and layout 6 month ago.
Now that i've work with Max for 5 month i'm for only one application.

It is simpler, faster, and open a lot of possibylities.

When you model in Max for instance, you have a simple mode to activate:
Select your object and isolate it. Your scene is still there but you see only your object and there is no slowing down.

You can if you want open a new scene to model only your object and after that export your object in your complet scene with the light and the rest.

In one application you have the advantage of both the modeler and the layout.

But it is only beacause i've work with a one application soft that i can now understand why it is more powerfull than a 2 application soft.

When i'm working back with LW now, i only see the disadvantage of the split application.
Don't think for a minute that nobody else here has worked with a combined 3D app.

Since you only see the disadvantages in a split application, I'll show you the advantages.

1) File size
Everytime you save a new scene in Max or a combined app, you save a new copy of all the geometry, whether you changed it or not. Scene file directories in a combined app tend to be in Gigabytes, where with LW it will be in Megabytes. Everytime you save your work in a combined app, it re-writes all the geometry. This saving and re-saving of geometry over and over again is a complete waste of network traffic, unless you're changing the geometry or surfaces.

The additional time it takes to save all the geometry makes every save count in minutes instead of seconds - you will have to stop what you're doing, and wait. Since I budget my work time, I will save less often if it takes ten times longer. If it only takes one second, I will save my scene no matter how small an improvement I've made. If it takes one minute, I'll wait until I've made several improvements, which is a greater risk of loss in the case of a crash.

2) Interface
The interface is less cluttered in a split app. There is no need to sift through lighting or animation tools when you're modeling and vice-versa. There are also not enough keys to make Keyboard shortcuts for all the common commands of modeling and layout in LW. And in Lightwave's modeler, there is no need to constantly go in-and-out of "object" mode to go from one model to another.

3) RAM requirements
Running a combined app requires more ram to be used for running the application. Running multiple copies of LW is a distinct advantage that it has over Max.

4) Object Referencing
In a split app, an updated model will be updated for every scene that is using it. In a combine app, you have to open each scene that needs it, and load it manually.

This doesn't mean there are no disadvantages, or that a combined app can't be designed with these advantages, but one hasn't been designed yet. Perhaps that's what Newtek is trying to do. For example, Max does allow for object referencing, but it's unstable and over-complicated.

I would actually love it if it were possible to dynamically reference more things, like lighting and textures. Animation can be, but it could be simplified.

Wonderpup
12-03-2006, 04:32 PM
I had a job recently where I needed to trace the tip of a sword in motion with an animated line- this involved putting the live action footage in the background and creating a spline to describe the movements of the sword on a frame by frame basis- but I had no timeline in modeler and no ability to interactively create a spline in layout- so this simple task was beyond my reach. I ended up having to do the job in max.

This lack of flexibility is not good and is a major reason why I have been rubber necking other solutions of late. I'm not saying there wasn't some clever workaround solution, but I didn't have the time ( or perhaps the brainpower) to find it- so the sooner lightwave becomes one app the better as far as I'm concerned ( Plus the fact that I upgraded to 9 largely for this very reason)

kyle_r
12-03-2006, 04:41 PM
I don't think that i'm the only one who has worked with a combi app, don't worry for that. But if some one has never done that (me 6 month ago) and have only worked with LW, he can't understand the adv and disadvantages of a combi app.

You made some good points in your post.

1/ I agree with the size of max scene. But i must says that sometime one file for the all scene & objects is an advantage. It depends of the project.
I'm not with you for the speed of the opening and the saving of a big scene.
I've used LW (7.5) for 1 year with big scene with 4 millions poly and it was very slow to open and save. I've recently used max with scene about 8/10 millions polys who were fastest to open than the 4 millions LW polys scene. Both on a approximativly same PC. Bi-xeon with 4go of Ram.

By the way Max is good when it crash, 75% of the time it save your scene before exit. With LW you don't have this luck.

2/ If you only want to model in Max, you load your own interface that you have specially made with all the keyboard shortcuts that you want. It is only a one click to go. No big deal.

3/ Ram requirements. A subjet allready debatted in this topic. I can't use in LW9 both modeler and layout with this ***** hub ! It is too much instable.
LW use less ram than max at the begining, but with the use of intancing you save a lot of memories in max.

4/I agree with you Object referencing is easy and simple in LW.
But you have Xref scene and xref object in Max to make some referencing. And when you know how to use it, it is very powerfull and a good ram saver.

What i want to say is that you don't work the same way in LW than in Max.
And with what i've done this last 3 month with it and learn, in an archiviz project agency, it is ways faster to use max than to use LW forthis kind of work.

If you want to correct a object geometry you don't have to switch to modeler, waiting modeler to refresh thant correct the object, resave, switch to layout, wainting layout refreshing then 2 mins later have to made another correction to the object. In archiviz, in some agency you have some time to work like this because of a lot of quick change from the designer.
In max, you select your object, isolate it and start modify it in 3 secs. When it's done exit isolate and that's it.

Switch from modeler to layout, back and force is a waste of time, mostly with big scene with a lot of object or a lot of poly count.

I didn't like max before having to use it. Then you quickly find that it is not so bad. Know i like both LW and Max, and it is for the better.

Modeling was a issue in max for some time, not anymore. There is a lot more interactive modeling tools in it that in modeler, without external plug of course.

So both have adv and disadvantages, but switching from modeler to layout is a waist of time, and bigger is the scene, bigger is the time waisted.

axaboss
12-03-2006, 07:26 PM
I look forward to seeing animating modeling tools in layout. Newtek won't be able to keep them separate for long.

SplineGod
12-03-2006, 10:32 PM
Wonderpup, I agree. Would be nice to even have some basic function.
I had to do something similar and I ended up using EditFX and then FIs Minimo to move the points around in layout.

toby
12-03-2006, 11:06 PM
I don't think that i'm the only one who has worked with a combi app, don't worry for that. But if some one has never done that (me 6 month ago) and have only worked with LW, he can't understand the adv and disadvantages of a combi app.

You made some good points in your post.

1/ I agree with the size of max scene. But i must says that sometime one file for the all scene & objects is an advantage. It depends of the project.
I'm not with you for the speed of the opening and the saving of a big scene.
I've used LW (7.5) for 1 year with big scene with 4 millions poly and it was very slow to open and save. I've recently used max with scene about 8/10 millions polys who were fastest to open than the 4 millions LW polys scene. Both on a approximativly same PC. Bi-xeon with 4go of Ram.

By the way Max is good when it crash, 75% of the time it save your scene before exit. With LW you don't have this luck.

2/ If you only want to model in Max, you load your own interface that you have specially made with all the keyboard shortcuts that you want. It is only a one click to go. No big deal.

3/ Ram requirements. A subjet allready debatted in this topic. I can't use in LW9 both modeler and layout with this ***** hub ! It is too much instable.
LW use less ram than max at the begining, but with the use of intancing you save a lot of memories in max.

4/I agree with you Object referencing is easy and simple in LW.
But you have Xref scene and xref object in Max to make some referencing. And when you know how to use it, it is very powerfull and a good ram saver.

What i want to say is that you don't work the same way in LW than in Max.
And with what i've done this last 3 month with it and learn, in an archiviz project agency, it is ways faster to use max than to use LW forthis kind of work.

If you want to correct a object geometry you don't have to switch to modeler, waiting modeler to refresh than correct the object, resave, switch to layout, wainting layout refreshing then 2 mins later have to made another correction to the object. In archiviz, in some agency you have some time to work like this because of a lot of quick change from the designer.
In max, you select your object, isolate it and start modify it in 3 secs. When it's done exit isolate and that's it.

Switch from modeler to layout, back and force is a waste of time, mostly with big scene with a lot of object or a lot of poly count.

I didn't like max before having to use it. Then you quickly find that it is not so bad.
Actually over the last year I have gotten more used to it and I've found out that it's worse than I remember. I learned Max before LW.


Know i like both LW and Max, and it is for the better.

Modeling was a issue in max for some time, not anymore. There is a lot more interactive modeling tools in it that in modeler, without external plug of course.

So both have adv and disadvantages, but switching from modeler to layout is a waist of time, and bigger is the scene, bigger is the time waisted.
As long as you understand that a split app *does* have advantages. Which way is better is purely up to the user and what he's using it for. I do lighting and rendering, so modeling tools just get in the way, if implemented the way they always have. And of course there is no advantage or disadvantage in loading a scene in a split app.

I didn't want to single out Max, because the point was split-app vs. combined app, but I have to say, if you care about workflow and/or stability, Max is GARBAGE. Every show I've done in Max I end up working 80 hours a week or more, just to get 2-3 shots done, while in LW I've done 9 shots, *and* re-did shots for a really weak artist, *and* helped with compositing, only working 60 hours a week.
It always blew my mind how they developed scene-saving software instead of plugging the massive memory leaks that cause crashes out of the blue every few hours. The only bluescreen-of-death I've had since Windows98 was from trying to run 2 copies of Max at once. Another artist on my team can't load his rendered sequence onto his machine while Max is running. Xref-ing keeps you from making any adjustments to textures, and all our pro-Max experts tell us "don't use it", because screwy things can and do happen. It's a good idea, poorly implemented.

But don't confuse my hatred of Max with my preference for a 3D app without modeling in it. Electric Image (used for Star Wars Ep1 and numerous other features), Renderman, and Sony Picture's proprietary software do lighting and rendering with no modeling tools in sight. That's what I like, that's just the way I roll :D
I don't want modeling tools, nor models saved in Layout anymore than I want texture-painting tools or images saved in Layout - even though it could come in handy at some point, it's more trouble than it's worth.

kyle_r
12-04-2006, 11:37 AM
I'm again agree with you Toby for some points.

Max crash more than LW, it is a fact that i've notice, but no blue screen for me.
Max sometimes screw your scene and you can't understand why. That's true.
I've use also Vray for archiviz, and some times you have both vray and max error who crash the app and you could not figure why.

But i must say that Max has some advantage than LW don't have, and inversely.

In max everything is keyable even modeling. this is maybe the same in the other combi app. But how do you do that in a split app like LW ?

Sad that the Hub give for a lot of us some bad headache.
If the switch between modeler and layout could be faster without multiple freeze ...

Some time a combi app is better for a type of project.
Some time a split app is better.

Anyway i think that we have to learn more than one app to cover all the range of 3d, if you work as a freelance. LW of course and another app of your choice !

Maybe LW could be at the same time a combi and a split app, who knows ...

Pavlov
12-04-2006, 12:01 PM
Newtek please, dont listen these pro-split guys.
They were sent by Autodesk to give bad advices ;)

Paolo

Limbus
12-04-2006, 12:08 PM
Newtek please, dont listen these pro-split guys.
They were sent by Autodesk to give bad advices ;)


LOL

Pleas integrate as fast as possible. Having two different apps has some advantages but much more disadvantages. LW has so many tools that are just there because of two different apps. Development also is slower because of two different apps. Every other app instantly can take advantage of new features like the new OpenGL stuff but for LW it has to be developed twice.

Florian

kfinla
12-04-2006, 12:17 PM
i personally like it split.. well i know there needs to be modelling tools in layour for a lot of deformation etc purposes, and im all for that.. but i like the idea of still having modeller seperate, even if it was a repeat of the tools in layout.

I could do all my modelling seperate without the overhead of one clunky everything in one app.. and worry about animating in layout, and tweaking morph targets etc in layout vs. building things from scratch.

SplineGod
12-04-2006, 02:11 PM
Last I heard Newtek was planning on implementing the modeler tools in layout AND having modeler as a separate app. :)

cresshead
12-04-2006, 03:02 PM
both is the way to go...and newtek always adds a certain amout of 'cool' in there too which is nice!

toby
12-04-2006, 07:04 PM
I'd certainly prefer a combined Lightwave to Max, animation of modeling tools and Vray are the only advantages to Max right now, and it looks like Kray will eliminate the Vray advantage. I also agree that NT will most likely find a better way to have both.

Silkrooster
12-04-2006, 08:21 PM
I like to do test renders while modeling, especially to see how much pinching there is etc. So to me it don't matter too much but would prefer a single app.
Silk

GraphXs
12-04-2006, 11:54 PM
I believe Newtek plans a merge of some sort. I do wish they would merge them and just have a "Modeler" Tab in layout that switches the UI to just be modeling tools. (conciliated tools ) Also it would be nice to use the same “looking” type of tool gizmos for displacing the object like modeler. That way we can use the same open-gl windows and not have double the texture memory and say good by to the Hub!:thumbsup:

axaboss
12-05-2006, 09:09 AM
GraphXs... I like the way you think. A tab in layout and get rid of the hub. I hate that **** hub.

lots
12-05-2006, 10:03 AM
Personally I would like to see something along these lines, in terms of Operation of modeler/layout.

First, I'd like to see something to the effect of modeler tools, layout tools, and other various items extracted into a collection of DLLs (alot of this has already happened). I'd then like to see the actual executables for modeler and layout just become one executable with various modes. For example, if I start up the single LW exe, I should be able to pass to it a flag that says what mode to start in. So I can still have two shortcuts on my desktop one for modeler one for layout, but in actuality they call the same exe with different modes.

Naturally since its just a mode, once LW is up and running you should be able to switch from modeler to layout with a toggle button. Which basically acts as a switch to change the UI to favor animation tools rather than modeling. This keeps clutter down. Alternatively you should be able to start another instance of the lw.exe and have it start in layout rather than modeler. To get a more traditional LW feel. I'd imagine hub would be needed in this situation. Though, its possible to work around this problem.. I think :)

It would even be pretty neat if you could just start the lw.exe with a render flag, and it would just load the needed libraries to become a render node :P

Having all aspects of LW broken down in to a collection of DLLs should alow for alot of flexibility, IMO. And these appear to be a few of the options that, at a quick glance, stick out in my head. Maybe if I thought this through a little more I would see problems or better ways of doing this, but to me, initially, this all sounds like a good direction to go in :)

I'm not sure how useful it is to have a single exe contain all these abilities, but since most of the functionality is written off in a library somewhere, the exe just needs to interface with them in various ways. It would also help make maintaining the app a little easier, perhaps, as one single exe is easier to keep track of than three or four :)

Again, just my opinion...

Cageman
12-06-2006, 01:30 PM
1) File size
Everytime you save a new scene in Max or a combined app, you save a new copy of all the geometry, whether you changed it or not. Scene file directories in a combined app tend to be in Gigabytes, where with LW it will be in Megabytes. Everytime you save your work in a combined app, it re-writes all the geometry. This saving and re-saving of geometry over and over again is a complete waste of network traffic, unless you're changing the geometry or surfaces.

Reference system cures this!

Works like lwo and lws separation, but with the added functionality of "Load from Scene". Our pipeline is pretty basic but illustrates how flexible such a system is.

The attached schematic shows how the Object-file is referenced into a Shading-scene and a Rig-scene. So, while I rig, and later animate, the shading-guy can do his work without even thinking about me doing my stuff. He can easily exchange the Object-reference to the Animation-reference, to see what his shading looks like animated, then change back to the Object-reference. In the Rig-scene, I can change the Object-reference to the Shading-reference, save, load the Animation-reference to see what the shading-dude have done and how it affects my Animation. Ohh.. and if I later on discover that I need to change some deformations or even totaly change the rig, I simply open the Rig-scene, do my stuff, and it will update through the whole pipeline. Same thing with the shading-stuff.

If you have a similar pipe in LightWave, you have to open every single scene that contains the character, and use Load from Scene, if you change things that are scene-related rather than object-related (bones, expressions, motion-modifiers, well... ALOT OF STUFF). And this is something that doesn't work properly. T4D have hammerd NT a long time for a bugfixed "Load from Scene" tool, but the bugs are still there... to this day!

Ohh..and when I reference the Object-scene into my Rig-scene and save, the only thing that will be saved is a pointer that tells Maya to load a reference. I guess the scenefile would be like 1-4 KB (similar to an LW-scene, containing an object without any additional stuff). If I add the rig and do other things, it will grow, but it will not save the object, because it is referenced...

SCS5
12-06-2006, 02:54 PM
Hi all!....Well, I started this thread over a year ago!......A Long Time Ago in A Galaxy Far, Far Away.......At least that's what it feels like!

Since then Newtek had said that they would have modeling tools in Layout for V.9.0, Then they recinded!..They would be added later in the 9X release?? ..Excuse me? ..I already paid for Modeling in Layout 9.0! and to anyone who says they never promised it for 9.0 it was for the 9X cycle...check again, THEY DID!...That was the primary reason I bought into this version.....
It is the one main function that's missing from Lightwave that every other Competitive 3D software manufacturer has. You know why every other 3D manufacturer has it? Because they NEED TO BE ABLE TO ANIMATE ALL THE THINGS THEY MODEL,

Want to morph a deformation? Pull some points & animate them. Want to animate a boolean set a key-frame , do a boolean, set another key-frame, DONE!..No going to Modeler make changes , Save, back to Layout, reload, Ooops!, *#@#$%%**extra layers don't show up?? Re-Load!..Etc,Back to @#&*% Modeler..Try again!....Great @#!^@!! Workflow..:thumbsdow

If you want em separate they WILL BE, but if you want to do more than simple stuff, you need to have some consolidation, Period! Once again, why do you never hear anyone say I modeled this in XSI, Max, Etc, and animated it in Lightwave?? Because you can't just make changes to the model while you're animating it on the fly. + Character Rigging, Bones, Camera preview, Worley? Just to name a few.....Either poorly implemented, or not there at all!:thumbsdow ..Where's the 9X we were promised would knock the 3D world on it's ear??

Until Lightwave gets these tools in Layout and implements them powerfully, it will always take us longer to Animate simple things, and we will never be as good as the competition! :thumbsdow

So....Where does Modeling in Layout stand???....Newtek, any words?

prospector
12-06-2006, 03:26 PM
Newtek please, dont listen these pro-split guys.
They were sent by Autodesk to give bad advices

Oh peshaw!!! :D

Just fix the hub to be better and be done with this integrate buisness.
I tried the other programs that had demos and if there was nothing showing on the screen and doing something and rendered within 10 min (which is 6 more than I gave LW way way back in ver 3) then the program wasn't worth it's weight in lead.

And as for time saving in single app.

So another program does something in 1 click and LW takes 3 and 1 is updating thru hub which on my compy never takes more than 3 sec.

1 sec for 1 click, 3 sec for hub, 1 sec for next click, and back to where a single app is.

Now lets see 5 sec saved at 20 per hour pay = (3600 sec in hour divided into $20.00 equals .0055 cents per sec times 5 sec) .0275 cents and I'll round that to 3 cents.

If you do that 100 times a day (highly doubtful but IF you do) then you've saved a WHOLE 3 bucks.

And if you make 5 times $20.00 then you've saved 15 bucks.
15 bucks ???
and only saved 8.3 min for 100 times......I use more time to fart during the day.

I just need to time farts to when I hit the F12 key and I save time there. :D

SCS5
12-06-2006, 03:54 PM
Oh peshaw!!! :D

And as for time saving in single app.

So another program does something in 1 click and LW takes 3 and 1 is updating thru hub which on my compy never takes more than 3 sec.

1 sec for 1 click, 3 sec for hub, 1 sec for next click, and back to where a single app is.

Now lets see 5 sec saved at 20 per hour pay = (3600 sec in hour divided into $20.00 equals .0055 cents per sec times 5 sec) .0275 cents and I'll round that to 3 cents.

If you do that 100 times a day (highly doubtful but IF you do) then you've saved a WHOLE 3 bucks.

And if you make 5 times $20.00 then you've saved 15 bucks.
15 bucks ???
and only saved 8.3 min for 100 times......I use more time to fart during the day.

I just need to time farts to when I hit the F12 key and I save time there. :D

You have obviously never needed to change the number of layers in a model after you started to animate it. Have never needed to Animate objects, or cities building themselves, or growing, Booleans interactively drilling onto objects. Never needed to make changes to complex morphs, and see the results in seconds so the client sitting behind you asking for the changes can see them, and then move onto other ideas.
When a client comes in to see a project and wants to make changes they don't want to see 20 or 30 different steps to accomplish simple tasks ( by the way it doesn't take a 1 second click to make complex changes, it takes 5 or 10 minutes!) and the client has just seen another animator on software X do this same thing in 2 clicks and in 30 seconds...............That's the difference between having Animatable Modeling in Layout.......

And, at least here, they're paying allot more than $20 Hr.

Guess What..Next time client goes back to software X, where changes happen FAST, and he sees results, and he saves money!

Not, OK, OK, give me a few minutes to make these changes??...Ooops...Layer problem again!!.... I can fix this................

Wonderpup
12-06-2006, 04:36 PM
Yesterday I began the painful process of learning XSI-But even my first cursory skim through the docs reveals a frightening gap in capability between the two apps.

To those who dismiss the call for integration as trivial I would suggest just reading the XSI docs with an open mind. Integration is a powerful thing, with implications that reach into every facet of the 3d process.

Without integration I fear Lightwave is going to look more and more like an historical curiosity, rather than a modern solution. I don't think it's any longer a question of preference, more one of survival. Don't forget, we're used to it- but to 'outsiders' it looks positively weird to have this fundemental split in the process.

SCS5
12-06-2006, 04:41 PM
Oh peshaw!!! :D

So another program does something in 1 click and LW takes 3 and 1 is updating thru hub which on my compy never takes more than 3 sec.

1 sec for 1 click, 3 sec for hub, 1 sec for next click, and back to where a single app is.



Buy the way, the "Hub" doesn't work for Allot of us in V9. The only way we can get 9 to work is to DISABLE THIS DINOSAUR!!!

We should all be chanting, :cursin: "Death to the Hub!!!":cursin:

prospector
12-06-2006, 04:51 PM
Never met a customer that asks 'before I give you the job, just what software do you use?"

And around here, I NEVER let them see me work...EVER.

You see we can't smoke in a working enviroment when others don't...and there is no way I give up my Marlboros for anyone.

All I get is "can you do it?"
"yep"
"do it"

They get 1 change (to be changed at thier place)

Do changes and they get results (at thier place)

You guys work too hard :)

SCS5
12-06-2006, 05:01 PM
And around here, I NEVER let them see me work...EVER.




That's because you're using Lightwave & it takes so long to make simple changes to Projects. You have to jump through 20 hoops to do them.!!!

Layout, Modeler, Layout, Modeler, Layout, Modeler, Layout, Modeler....Etc, Etc, Etc............................................... .............................

Here's an Idea!..In Layout Push points, Drill, Twist, Add polygons, Tweak Model, Keyframe,...DONE!.......Hmmmmmmmmmmmm??

UnCommonGrafx
12-06-2006, 05:39 PM
Only if you work with one arm.

;)

Just joshing. I, too, envision working in a unified LW.


(For all those working with one arm, no insult/patronizing/degradation is/was intended.)

prospector
12-06-2006, 06:46 PM
Here's an Idea!..In Layout Push points, Drill, Twist, Add polygons, Tweak Model, Keyframe,...DONE!.......Hmmmmmmmmmmmm??

But shouldn't that be done in modeler..by careful planing ahead?
Anyways, that's neither here nor there and before this gets into argument
I shall leave with this;

In 12 going on 13 years with LW, I have YET to see ANYTHING that can be done in another program, that can't possably be done in LW by any means.

And besides, ya have to give us ol' timers a break. we have come too far to learn new tricks :D :D :D

toby
12-06-2006, 11:55 PM
Hi all!....Well, I started this thread over a year ago!
Since then Newtek had said that they would have modeling tools in Layout for V.9.0, Then they recinded!..They would be added later in the 9X release?? ..Excuse me? ..I already paid for Modeling in Layout 9.0! and to anyone who says they never promised it for 9.0 it was for the 9X cycle...check again, THEY DID!...That was the primary reason I bought into this version.....
It is the one main function that's missing from Lightwave that every other Competitive 3D software manufacturer has. You know why every other 3D manufacturer has it? Because they NEED TO BE ABLE TO ANIMATE ALL THE THINGS THEY MODEL,

Want to morph a deformation? Pull some points & animate them. Want to animate a boolean set a key-frame , do a boolean, set another key-frame, DONE!..No going to Modeler make changes , Save, back to Layout, reload, Ooops!, *#@#$%%**extra layers don't show up?? Re-Load!..Etc,Back to @#&*% Modeler..Try again!....Great @#!^@!! Workflow..:thumbsdow

If you want em separate they WILL BE, but if you want to do more than simple stuff, you need to have some consolidation, Period! Once again, why do you never hear anyone say I modeled this in XSI, Max, Etc, and animated it in Lightwave?? Because you can't just make changes to the model while you're animating it on the fly. + Character Rigging, Bones, Camera preview, Worley? Just to name a few.....Either poorly implemented, or not there at all!:thumbsdow ..Where's the 9X we were promised would knock the 3D world on it's ear??

Until Lightwave gets these tools in Layout and implements them powerfully, it will always take us longer to Animate simple things, and we will never be as good as the competition! :thumbsdow

So....Where does Modeling in Layout stand???....Newtek, any words?
Jesus, take a PILL!

The entire 3D world does not revolve around Animated Modeling.

And don't act like everything is harder and slower in LW. That's a crock. There's good reason that it dominates the outrageously-short-schedule 3D TV Industry.

You're justified being upset about the modeling tools in Layout, but don't think for a minute that we believe this "LW doesn't dominate/ isn't competitive/ is hopelessly lost because it doesn't have the feature that I want" crap. Go to the Architecure forum, where they say similar things but blame it on LW's radiosity. Ask them if they'd rather have irradiance caching and photon mapping, or a combined app.

In any case, there's no real point in arguing for or against integration, it will happen in some form or another. I'm just tired of hearing that it's 'crazy' to have a split app.

Limbus
12-07-2006, 01:07 AM
Just fix the hub to be better and be done with this integrate buisness.
I wish it would be that easy. But even with a working hub (and it is not working in LW9 at all right now) you would still be left with a not working load from scene, no camera in modeler, more development needed to integrate features twice (wihich causes more bugs), stupid workarounds that are there just because of the two programs like skelegons etc...



I tried the other programs that had demos and if there was nothing showing on the screen and doing something and rendered within 10 min (which is 6 more than I gave LW way way back in ver 3) then the program wasn't worth it's weight in lead.

No thats what I call a scientific test. :thumbsdow

Florian

Pavlov
12-07-2006, 01:42 AM
My statement is probably useless, but i'm astonished that people still talk about pro and cons of integration.
Integration must be done, it's not something we can keep from. Market shows directions, is up to developers to follow them or to "do different".
In these times, where every singel area of 3D has excellent referents, "doing different" means almost always "doing worse" and this is clearly under our eyes. Tell me something in LW which is "different" and which is better than actual standards: hardly you'll find anything.
Integration is clearly better for 99% of the factors in play. If the remaining 1% or the necessary changes scare someone it's a different thing, but this kinda conservative, sideway/backstreet though is the exact thing which brought LW where it is now. Sorry.

Paolo

Pavlov
12-07-2006, 01:49 AM
Toby - i'm a Viz guy, and i'm one of the hardest on GI side.
Still i prefer an integrated app. It's not always down to personal preferences, as you see. LW must grow generally not locally. BTW, i dont care about LW's GI, it will never match major engines; what i and many other ask here, is not "please NT give us GI", but a better and wide open SDK to allow full and wide 3rd part plugins connection, rendering egines included.
LW's gi needs updates for daily usage, but thinking it will ever be enough to match Vray/Kray levels for speed/quality is pure SciFi.

Paolo

colkai
12-07-2006, 02:14 AM
don't think for a minute that we believe this "LW doesn't dominate/ isn't competitive/ is hopelessly lost because it doesn't have the feature that I want" crap.

Herein lies the truth. :agree:
Each person has their own PERSONAL idea of what is the must-have, "LW will die without" feature. Put 10 people in a room and I'd wager none of them agree what is the most critical.

I need, absolutely MUST have decent edged modelling and weight handling, I don't give a crock about modelling in Layout. If i have to edit the model once it's is layout - I've shot the pooch. LW is doomed unless I get what I want, Newtek have dropped the ball ya-da ya-da ya-da.

Ya see, horses for courses, stop whining and get to grips with the problem, by either "in-LW" workarounds, or looking at other ways of getting the desired results.

Do I think much improved edge-handling is on the way, well, I've no idea, but I'd like to think so. Meantime, I'll carry on doing what I do.

My boss doesn't ask what tool ro what method I used to get a result, he is only interested in the result being what he wants and he sure wouldn't buy me whining that "ohh, but I can't do it because...it's their fault".

toby
12-07-2006, 02:29 AM
Toby - i'm a Viz guy, and i'm one of the hardest on GI side.
Still i prefer an integrated app.
Would you have made that choice before Kray existed?


It's not always down to personal preferences, as you see. LW must grow generally not locally. BTW, i dont care about LW's GI, it will never match major engines; what i and many other ask here, is not "please NT give us GI", but a better and wide open SDK to allow full and wide 3rd part plugins connection, rendering egines included.
LW's gi needs updates for daily usage, but thinking it will ever be enough to match Vray/Kray levels for speed/quality is pure SciFi.

Yes of course. It would need a complete re-write. I was not getting into the specifics of render engines, I was merely making a point that one person's wants or needs don't dictate what is right or wrong for LW.

evenflcw
12-07-2006, 02:36 AM
In 12 going on 13 years with LW, I have YET to see ANYTHING that can be done in another program, that can't possably be done in LW by any means.

Sorry but then you haven't been pushing the envelope very much. Especially when it comes to rigging and displacement there are things which I believe simply aren't possible, even if you write your own custom plugins, because the motion and displacement cores where poorly structured to start with and have never really been updated (other than adding the After IK flag, and Subdivision Order function; neither of which think were the most flexible possible solution). What people have done then is accepted LWs limitations and compromised what they really wanted to do or how they wanted to set things up. Ie they got the job done, but not the way they wanted to get it done. That's not right. "By any means" shouldn't mean you have to compromise your work or workflow.

Other than that, I agree with Pavlov. There really need to be no disadvantages with integration for anyone. With the integrated enviroment being able to do everything and some very basic interface customization functionality everyone can be happy (pro-integration and pro-split alike). Integration doesn't have to mean you have to change your workflow!! But you probably will anyway ... ;)

Sensei
12-07-2006, 02:49 AM
IMHO from user point of view, clicking tab in integrated Layout and Modeler interface window to switch between animating to modeling and vice versa is nothing different than clicking Modeler button on bottom Windows panel.. It's just place where you click! In LW9 hub was accidently broken, but that is easy fixable issue (even by LW user), and should not cause smart people to start hating hub..

I have never seen feature request for life update LightWave through internet.. That would really change things for good! And bug found one day would be fixed in second and automatically downloaded by users. But that's not practical from marketing point of view, because there would be no long waiting for bug fixes and user talking what cool new version will have, no presses for point releases.. They would be just like that, from day to day..

ercaxus
12-07-2006, 03:02 AM
I am having some hard time understanding what's wrong with having these two together:
1 - an all in one everything together just one(as in 1) application
2 - also another application to do strictly modeling. (which happens to reside in the other application(1) and you could chose not to see/believe that the other application(1) is still there if you like so)

I will never understand I guess. Do we really believe that having the modeler in layout will make things worse? If we could hide everything that's layout related and model as we wish, would knowing that this is an integrated application make people have nightmares? What is the reason behind this resistance against the integration? Do the other companies bribe people? I know why!! m0do people are trying to have their integrated application and they are trying to prevent nt from doing it first by telepathically changing people's minds through cellphones(yes that small weird icon on the cellphone screen) :D I just uncovered the great conspiracy i guess. This must be their super-evil(very bad, very bad) plan.
When demos of m0do appear showing animation I so want to see people who believe it's great because it's only concentrated on modeling. We are not on 386's with 4mb ram anymore. A lot of people use dual core machines with huge amounts of ram just for surfing and instant messaging.
I still can't believe while probably every other app can do weight painting and seeing the effect in real time we have to run a plugin, in its seperate window, in modeler to do that.

Of course I will change my mind in a second if someone shows/proves that things are better the way they are.

I just feel like I double posted this.(but this one's bigger)

toby
12-07-2006, 03:08 AM
My statement is probably useless, but i'm astonished that people still talk about pro and cons of integration.
I wouldn't talk about it, but you guys are too closed minded to see both sides of the issue.


Integration must be done, it's not something we can keep from. Market shows directions,
Exactly how is the market saying that 3D apps need to be integrated? ZBrush? Renderman?


is up to developers to follow them or to "do different".
In these times, where every single area of 3D has excellent referents, "doing different" means almost always "doing worse" and this is clearly under our eyes. Tell me something in LW which is "different" and which is better than actual standards: hardly you'll find anything.
Hypervoxels - but being different really has nothing to do with it. It's stupid to be different just for the sake of being different - it's stupid to be the same just for the sake of being the same. You do your best, and if it's different, so be it.


Integration is clearly better for 99% of the factors in play.
It's also worse in many ways. I've pointed out several ways, and none of them have been refuted.


If the remaining 1% or the necessary changes scare someone it's a different thing, but this kinda conservative, sideway/backstreet though is the exact thing which brought LW where it is now. Sorry.

(Losing their core programmers had nothing to do with it?)

Please don't insult me by saying I'm just 'scared' of change, especially after I've made many arguments to support my position. On top of that, I'm not saying that your preference is 'wrong', or 'bad', or even 'worse' like you guys are. I'm saying it has more drawbacks than benefits for me, and I'd be happier without it. All I get in return is "it has to be done", by people who want integration.

You guys can also stop whining how much we need it, because, like I said, it's coming anyway.

toby
12-07-2006, 03:15 AM
Reference system cures this!

Works like lwo and lws separation, but with the added functionality of "Load from Scene". Our pipeline is pretty basic but illustrates how flexible such a system is.

The attached schematic shows how the Object-file is referenced into a Shading-scene and a Rig-scene. So, while I rig, and later animate, the shading-guy can do his work without even thinking about me doing my stuff. He can easily exchange the Object-reference to the Animation-reference, to see what his shading looks like animated, then change back to the Object-reference. In the Rig-scene, I can change the Object-reference to the Shading-reference, save, load the Animation-reference to see what the shading-dude have done and how it affects my Animation. Ohh.. and if I later on discover that I need to change some deformations or even totaly change the rig, I simply open the Rig-scene, do my stuff, and it will update through the whole pipeline. Same thing with the shading-stuff.

If you have a similar pipe in LightWave, you have to open every single scene that contains the character, and use Load from Scene, if you change things that are scene-related rather than object-related (bones, expressions, motion-modifiers, well... ALOT OF STUFF). And this is something that doesn't work properly. T4D have hammerd NT a long time for a bugfixed "Load from Scene" tool, but the bugs are still there... to this day!

Ohh..and when I reference the Object-scene into my Rig-scene and save, the only thing that will be saved is a pointer that tells Maya to load a reference. I guess the scenefile would be like 1-4 KB (similar to an LW-scene, containing an object without any additional stuff). If I add the rig and do other things, it will grow, but it will not save the object, because it is referenced...
That is very cool. Does it come with Maya or did somebody write in MEL?

Wonderpup
12-07-2006, 04:33 AM
These debates are a bit like the frog in boiling water story, which goes; if you put a frog into a pan of boiling water it will jump out quick. But if you put it into a pan of cold water and slowly raise the heat, it will stay put and boil.

The fact that some current users are happy with Lightwave as it is, having learned to live with the limitations of a split app over time is ok- but new users may be more inclined to jump away to an easier environment. The world has changed a bit even in the last few years- these days you can 'try before you buy', which gives people a very real basis for comparison- and without exception every person I have introduced to lightwave have seen the modeler/layout split as a redundant encumbrance to their workflow.

Is it getting hot in here?

DiedonD
12-07-2006, 05:21 AM
Besides.... Joining Modeler with Layout would ruin its style. If you want all in one ya shouldva taken MAX3D. And now joining the two in one would be like going through the almighty Max'es road of wisdom. And I dont want to go that road, cause it doesnt has to be THEE most wisest way of all.

I say remain seperate, but still rigging should be all done in Modeler, or anything else if appropriate, so as then for the model to go well dressed, and prepared for a scene in Layout. This is me.

SCS5
12-07-2006, 06:02 AM
It's funny....to Toby, and all the other people who are fighting, clawing, screaming to keep it separate...Guys IT WILL BE!...There will be a seperate Modeler, but, in Layout, you will be able to animate changes FASTER & be able to do things that you could NEVER DO BEFORE!...Why are you so afraid of having capabilities in Lightwave it never had before? Would being able to do things you couldn't could do before in Lightwave, or do them faster be bad? And to anyone who say they've been using Lightwave for years, & they can do anything in Lightwave they want, or, you don't know the program well enough yet?? I too have been using it since V4 & there have been LOTS of things clients asked for over the years that I COULD NOT do.....because Modeler & Layout were separate.

Want to make a spaceship or submarine cruse past the camera for TV? Get Lightwave. Want to do Ice Age2, the Lion King, you know,.... High end stuff, where Modeling and Animating Fast might help???........................

SCS5
12-07-2006, 06:26 AM
Jesus, take a PILL!

.

I took a pill, it cost me $500 and the doctor at Newtek promised me it would cure all sorts of my problems....But, then he told me that many of the problems it was supposed to cure would in fact not be cured for several years, and, that I should be happy with the workarounds for now..You know, rub a little olive oil in my face for dry skin, Etc...........

Personally, I'd like the pill I paid for to do what it was supposed to......Olive Oil's getting kinda sloppy:D :devil:

SplineGod
12-07-2006, 06:35 AM
I think all of this is a moot point. Newtek has stated that Layout will have modeling capabilities built in. Some modeler tools already work.
They have also said that Modeler, at the same time, will also remain a separate app.
If the changes are not happening fast enough for some people there are other solutions out there. For those who dont feel that total integration is a problem yet they can afford to wait. :)

SCS5
12-07-2006, 07:04 AM
I think all of this is a moot point. Newtek has stated that Layout will have modeling capabilities built in. Some modeler tools already work.
They have also said that Modeler, at the same time, will also remain a separate app.
If the changes are not happening fast enough for some people there are other solutions out there. For those who dont feel that total integration is a problem yet they can afford to wait. :)


You're right.....

It just puzzles me that some people are so against progress?

When I get into a car and put on a seatbelt the odds are pretty good that I won't need it, but, if someone else hits me unexpectedly, it's nice to know that that simple thing could save me..........Some people still don't like seat belts, they think they were a bad idea?????

I like progress..........

Cageman
12-07-2006, 07:19 AM
That is very cool. Does it come with Maya or did somebody write in MEL?

It's a part of Maya and I believe it was avaliable as early as V4.0. I got into Maya at v6.0, wich had the reference system. So don't quote me on when the ref-system became avaliable, but it was there in V 6.0 at least.

TSpyrison
12-07-2006, 07:24 AM
Personally, I'd like the pill I paid for to do what it was supposed to......Olive Oil's getting kinda sloppy:D :devil:

olive oil is good for ya..
Its got monounsaturated omega-9 fatty acids :)

SCS5
12-07-2006, 07:33 AM
olive oil is good for ya..
Its got monounsaturated omega-9 fatty acids :)

You're right! I cook with it all the time.

I just don't like rubbing it on my face.:D

Now I'm going to drive to the store with out my seatbelt on................

DiedonD
12-07-2006, 07:49 AM
You're right! I cook with it all the time.

I just don't like rubbing it on my face.:D

Now I'm going to drive to the store with out my seatbelt on................

Your fun to talk to. Now listen, you say Layout will have all what Modeler has, and Modeler will have all what Layout has. So theres no point in wanting it still be separate, IT WILL BE, as you say, but it will be separate and have each others characteristics, for FASTER solutions in order to reach high end movies like Ice Age 1 (not 2 I didnt like it)

But, then again, if both have each others characteristics, why keep em separated?

You seem like in stress, with the pills an all. You shouldve been ready for over-challenge like this from most if not all members in this community, when you bring issues that I think were done before, and since LW is like this ever since before, man it just HAS to have a solid reason to be separate.
Its a beaten road I tell you, youve made your point and leave it aside pall, before you get overexhausted, obbsessed, advocate like typing abilities, and sadly even delusional in the end, if all this keeps up for a long period of time.

Pavlov
12-07-2006, 08:14 AM
Would you have made that choice before Kray existed?

Probably yes; if you are going to ask me "and if Fprime didnt exhist ?" well i'd probably would have been elsewhere now.
Anyway, if you have time and interest try to look in my posts around the forums in past times; merging has always been my top issue, along with SDK.


Yes of course. It would need a complete re-write. I was not getting into the specifics of render engines, I was merely making a point that one person's wants or needs don't dictate what is right or wrong for LW.

The complete rewrite is what they're doing now, gradually.
Gradual porting of modeling in Layout was also a strong LW9 hype point, so let's expect this, possibily not in 3-5 years but sooner.
I agree on personal needings and absolute issues - if it was for mw i'd ask NT to become a heavy viz company and put all energies on rendering engine and precise modeling - i'd be a very happy guy if NT put all its efforts in fully integrating Kray, Fprime and LWcad into an unique, clean viz tool - and i guess also this retargeting would make LW sell several times than now.
Anyway i put higher SDK and merging since they would benefit me too but not only, it's a quite unquestionable thing that wide open SDK and merging of modules are two radical keys for the future and for a better integration in pipelines, for more interest of 3rd part developers toward LW, for animation and rigging and so on.

Paolo

SCS5
12-07-2006, 08:18 AM
Your fun to talk to. Now listen, you say Layout will have all what Modeler has, and Modeler will have all what Layout has. So theres no point in wanting it still be separate, IT WILL BE, as you say, but it will be separate and have each others characteristics, for FASTER solutions in order to reach high end movies like Ice Age 1 (not 2 I didnt like it)

But, then again, if both have each others characteristics, why keep em separated?

.

Layout will get modeling tools, Modeler will stay the same as it's always been. Just with some major consolidation of duplicate modeling tools...I hope!

And yes, the stress of this all is killing me.......

As I was driving to the store without my seatbelt on an elderly person hit me and totaled my car, I bounced off the windshield and was semi concuss. When I came to my senses the elderly person was standing over me, saying keep them separate, keep them seperate..............I think she was talking about the totaled cars??................Or something???:D

Pavlov
12-07-2006, 08:50 AM
toby, sorry i overlooked a post of yours, no offence meant i was not referring to you regarding nostalgic attitude, it was a general statement.
Regarding points you say to be better now, i readed them fastly and honestly they look the same "separationist" are saying for years - asap i'll take a deeper look.
Imho a good implementation of integration could keep many of these advantage, but even if some are going to disappear the list of advantages is so huge that i wouldnt care at all. Many advanced tools rely on dynamic geometry or on a tight integration between geometry core and animation tools and LW wont get them if LW's Gcore is not tightly communicating with animation tools.
Think at all those character animation tools based on muslce primitives, or think to advanced dynamic tools - LW cannot actually explode or broke objects, not perform animated cuttings or booleans - and so many more i wont list for the Nth time.
Loosing referencing or other things to make a technology jump of 10 years ahead is a reasonable sacrifice for me.
So, my vote goes for integration no matter what we lose, imho gain will be several times larger in every case.

Paolo

tyrot
12-07-2006, 08:58 AM
dea pavlov

i wouldnt say "LW is not gonna get Fast-Accurate GI" in the future.

I strongly believed that LW's strongest area will be its renderer very soon. May be not in 9th cycle but in 10 our native legendary renderer will return. Those guys from EI probably not picking apples in their working time..

In terms of integration, i really dont care, cuz My Modeler version LW will be always installed in my pc. No matter what, i think integration will slow down Layout. Viva La Duala...

best

toby
12-07-2006, 02:14 PM
It's funny....to Toby, and all the other people who are fighting, clawing, screaming to keep it separate...

I'm not saying that your preference is 'wrong', or 'bad', or even 'worse'
:bangwall:




...There will be a seperate Modeler, but, in Layout, you will be able to animate changes FASTER & be able to do things that you could NEVER DO BEFORE!...
I am not a MODELER nor an ANIMATOR. STOP trying to tell me that I want the feature that YOU want.

Why are you so afraid of having capabilities in Lightwave it never had before?

Please don't insult me by saying I'm just 'scared' of change, especially after I've made many arguments to support my position.
:bangwall:



Would being able to do things you couldn't could do before in Lightwave, or do them faster be bad?

I'm not saying that your preference is 'wrong', or 'bad', or even 'worse'
:bangwall:




And to anyone who say they've been using Lightwave for years, & they can do anything in Lightwave they want, or, you don't know the program well enough yet?? I too have been using it since V4 & there have been LOTS of things clients asked for over the years that I COULD NOT do.....because Modeler & Layout were separate.
Clients will ask you for a Blue sky, but it has to look like it's red. They ALWAYS ask for things you can't do.


Want to make a spaceship or submarine cruse past the camera for TV? Get Lightwave. Want to do Ice Age2, the Lion King, you know,.... High end stuff, where Modeling and Animating Fast might help???........................
ALL the high-end stuff is made by at least 4 different 3D programs. So all the fuctions that aren't used in those apps are just baggage. If/when Newtek spends a lot of time and effort adding tools to Layout that I DON'T NEED, and that will probably cause conflicts, when they could be improving the SDK, the lighting, the rendering, or the workflow, I will not be in favor of it, no matter how much disbelief you sputter.

toby
12-07-2006, 02:25 PM
I am having some hard time understanding what's wrong with having these two together:
1 - an all in one everything together just one(as in 1) application
2 - also another application to do strictly modeling. (which happens to reside in the other application(1) and you could chose not to see/believe that the other application(1) is still there if you like so)

I will never understand I guess.
No you won't, as long as you don't read or listen to what people are saying, or respect other perspectives or preferences.



1) File size
Everytime you save a new scene in Max or a combined app, you save a new copy of all the geometry, whether you changed it or not. Scene file directories in a combined app tend to be in Gigabytes, where with LW it will be in Megabytes. Everytime you save your work in a combined app, it re-writes all the geometry. This saving and re-saving of geometry over and over again is a complete waste of network traffic, unless you're changing the geometry or surfaces.

The additional time it takes to save all the geometry makes every save count in minutes instead of seconds - you will have to stop what you're doing, and wait. Since I budget my work time, I will save less often if it takes ten times longer. If it only takes one second, I will save my scene no matter how small an improvement I've made. If it takes one minute, I'll wait until I've made several improvements, which is a greater risk of loss in the case of a crash.

2) Interface
The interface is less cluttered in a split app. There is no need to sift through lighting or animation tools when you're modeling and vice-versa. There are also not enough keys to make Keyboard shortcuts for all the common commands of modeling and layout in LW. And in Lightwave's modeler, there is no need to constantly go in-and-out of "object" mode to go from one model to another.

3) RAM requirements
Running a combined app requires more ram to be used for running the application. Running multiple copies of LW is a distinct advantage that it has over Max.

ercaxus
12-07-2006, 02:28 PM
Ok look at it this way:
One hundred years from now no one will care.

prospector
12-07-2006, 02:31 PM
:bangwall:
That must hurt Toby :D
Take an asprin

or better yet 2 martinies

SCS5
12-07-2006, 04:36 PM
:bangwall:
I am not a MODELER nor an ANIMATOR. STOP trying to tell me that I want the feature that YOU want..

If you don't model or animate then why do you use Lightwave?>:D



Clients will ask you for a Blue sky, but it has to look like it's red. They ALWAYS ask for things you can't do..

Actually, they just asked me to do things I couldn't because of Layout & Modelers separation


:bangwall:
ALL the high-end stuff is made by at least 4 different 3D programs. So all the fuctions that aren't used in those apps are just baggage. If/when Newtek spends a lot of time and effort adding tools to Layout that I DON'T NEED, and that will probably cause conflicts, when they could be improving the SDK, the lighting, the rendering, or the workflow, I will not be in favor of it, no matter how much disbelief you sputter.

But wouldn't it be nice if we could just use Lightwave instead of 2 or 3 apps?

I don't recall ever sputtering disbelief before...It's kinda fun.

Anyway, I thought since you were having so much fun with "quotes" I would join in and play too.:D

At the next NAB or SIGGRAPH, Let's get together, have a drink, and toast this crusty old program!!

That invite goes out to all who contribute here.

Cheers:beerchug:

SplineGod
12-07-2006, 06:44 PM
The term 'integration' can mean a lot of things to a lot of people. Im confident Newtek can do it in a way that keeps the strengths and removes the weaknesses. :)

SCS5
12-07-2006, 07:42 PM
By the way, Larry
I've learned so much about the intricacies of Lightwave through the tutorials I've bought and read from you .....THANK YOU for all your contributions to this forum and the Lightwave community over the years.........You Da Man!!:thumbsup:

SplineGod
12-07-2006, 07:43 PM
Hey Thanks! :)

Sensei
12-08-2006, 12:11 AM
Actually, they just asked me to do things I couldn't because of Layout & Modelers separation

For example?

Pavlov
12-08-2006, 03:14 AM
dea pavlov

i wouldnt say "LW is not gonna get Fast-Accurate GI" in the future.
I strongly believed that LW's strongest area will be its renderer very soon. May be not in 9th cycle but in 10 our native legendary renderer will return. Those guys from EI probably not picking apples in their working time..
In terms of integration, i really dont care, cuz My Modeler version LW will be always installed in my pc. No matter what, i think integration will slow down Layout. Viva La Duala...
best

I'll repeat the same disc again ;)
Surely we'll get efficent GI in the future, but noone knows when.
Again , i dont think a team who must develop a whole 3d software can match results from teams which develop only render engines.
3rd part engines will be always ahead and it makes no sense not providing full access to these.

Paolo

SCS5
12-08-2006, 04:59 AM
For example?

The company had a wood logo. They wanted to start with a solid block of wood. A saw would come down and chop the wood into separate blocks for each letter. Another saw would cut each block in to a letter of the logo, this Included cutting out holes, The chunks of wood would fall off each block as it was cut in to a letter, big pieces, small pieces, Etc. Finally a router would go around each letter's edge and give it a complex bevel as it passed around the outside and inside of each letter. For the router and each saw they wanted tiny wood chips to be flying off the wood, landing on the floor below.

I've wanted to do effects where I'd have a model "build" itself. Start with a simple cube on a table, then have it "grow" into a complex model by subdividing, extruding, twisting, cutting, drilling, Etc. You know, "build" its self. While in the background after the model has started to "grow" the table would also start to morph in to a different environment to compliment what ever the model has grown into.

SCS5
12-08-2006, 05:28 AM
Also while the model above is growiing, textures would be morphing in too. So, new textures would "grow" with the model. Basicly I'd want to be able to add new surfaces to the model on the fly. Start out with a model that has 1 surface, end with one that has 100!

Sensei
12-08-2006, 05:36 AM
As I thought.. Simple integration of Layout & Modeler won't allow doing such things just like that.. Object during entire animation has constant number of points, they won't be generated in fly in f.e. frame 100... and then deleted in 200.. Morph Target in Deform tab in Object Prioperties window won't automagically not show message that source and target objects must have exactly the same number of points..

Sensei
12-08-2006, 05:37 AM
Also while the model above is growiing, textures would be morphing in too. So, new textures would "grow" with the model. Basicly I'd want to be able to add new surfaces to the model on the fly. Start out with a model that has 1 surface, end with one that has 100!

In that case integrated Layout & Modeler will disappoint you..

SCS5
12-08-2006, 05:51 AM
As I thought.. Simple integration of Layout & Modeler won't allow doing such things just like that.. Object during entire animation has constant number of points, they won't be generated in fly in f.e. frame 100... and then deleted in 200.. Morph Target in Deform tab in Object Prioperties window won't automagically not show message that source and target objects must have exactly the same number of points..

I'm not talking about "Simple integration" I'm talking about adding "keyframeable" modeling tools to Layout. Extrude, Key-frame, Drill, Key frame, Subdivide, Key frame, Surface, Key-frame, Etc. Forget about Morph Targets! I'm hoping that this process completely changes the way we think about animating in Lightwave. If I'm going to dream, I'm going to dream BIG!....
And I've worked with programmers developing proprietary 3D animation software 15 years ago, so, I know A) what's involved B) That It's possible!

SCS5
12-08-2006, 02:55 PM
In that case integrated Layout & Modeler will disappoint you..

Sensei, I also use your plugins..EasySpline.Etc. GREAT STUFF! Thanks!

I'm sure ( Hope! :question: ) if Newtek implements these new Modeling tools in Layout they are also thinking of making them Key-Frame-able too.....
Then you can write more great plugins to compliment these new Animation capabilities.:D

I'm sure Newtek doesn't want to disappoint ME!:D

Sensei
12-08-2006, 03:34 PM
To be honest, I don't think so integrated Modeler & Layout will be working the way you are expecting it in above project any time soon..

First of all, it's not practical.. Let's imagine 1 milion point object.. It takes 12 MB to store just points, polygons not included.. So, if you want it to be animatable, every point alone, each of them must have its own envelope editable in something like Graph Editor.. 10 keyframes for entire 1 milion point object would take at least 120-200 MB of memory and hard disk space...

Now single point has informating about x,y,z total 12 bytes of memory.. But you're asking it to be keyframed.. So, there is total number of keys, 12 bytes per single key.. plus curve type, time and other infos (check GE for what is needed).. It's growing quickly..

Second very important issue- it's very VERY slowing down Layout OpenGL refreshing.. envelopes are curves, not linear usually, do you imagine moving frame-time slider when there is 1 milion or more splines to evaluate? I do not.. Try making 1 milion splines in EasySpline and take vacation in Jamaica for week.. ;) ;)

If somebody wants similar kind of working, he/she needs Z-Brush functionality with animatable normal maps.. That's better solution and doable with graphics-card 3d acceleration in decent gfx with Pixel-Shaders v2.0 and better.. Program basically blends one or more normal maps together in time, and quite small polygon numer using above CPU and memory killer key-frame everything solution..

Sensei
12-08-2006, 03:40 PM
I would like NewTek for 1st thing evaluate polygon handlers every single frame instead of freezing it to geometry immediately after loading to Layout.. That would allow EasySpline to keep object in splines all the time since modeling to rendering without user freezing it with EasySpline's Freeze Spline at any stage.. THAT would open true possibilities and it's job for a while for NewTek programmers.. 100 splines, 1-2k points, used to control milion frozen polygons in render.. and looking ultra complex...

UnCommonGrafx
12-08-2006, 03:51 PM
Great example, Sensei.

I've noticed EasySpline stuff showing up in layout as poly objects. Very cool.

SCS5, What you've described as a can't do in LW is very much doable in LW. The biggest obstacle would be the time to do it all. Sounds like a fun project, too.

Looking forward to your suggested changes, Sensei, as it sounds like all kinds of good can come from it.

SCS5
12-08-2006, 05:23 PM
objects. Very cool.

SCS5, What you've described as a can't do in LW is very much doable in LW. The biggest obstacle would be the time to do it all. Sounds like a fun project, too.

It is, but, the number of layers to cut up the letters ( 100s) & the Router- Bevel effect would take so long to figure out that the cost & time to do this would be prohibitive. The Object Building it-self could also be done by replacing the object with a new morphed one at every stage, but, again the time it would take VS. Key-Frameable Modeling in Layout is still prohibitive..if they do make modeling Key-Frameable it would take a project that's so time consuming and not cost effective into the realm of possibility. And it would cut the time to do these kinds of things 10 fold and make them easier for smaller budget projects..There by making it possible to give our clients more BANG for their buck! Pulling points in a face could happen on the fly while working on a character. Animation decisions could be made in Layout where they belong, not in Modeler. Animate in Layout, Model in Modeler.

I'll bet that you CAN do exactly what I'm talking about in Max, Maya, & XSI.
So why not in Lightwave?

UnCommonGrafx
12-08-2006, 05:33 PM
Hehe,
My comments are not that they should or shouldn't incorporate these things. My comment is that what you've described can be done in LW.

Seemingly, you are trying to do it 'for real' in a 'for faker' medium. ;)

With the new FX system, it is possible to pull points on the fly.

You could probably add at least two more programs to that list. But that's not the gist of this conversation. Yes, integration would be great. But it won't make your life that much easier in an animation of this nature. Faking it and getting close would, though, in a timely fashion. It's the problem solving that I'm arguing with, not the idea of integration.


Larry has shown stuff that clearly would fit your bill and not be too long to accomplish. The integration thing will occur, sure; but it won't be a holy grail to sitting down and problem solving a complex effect would be my point.

SCS5
12-08-2006, 07:10 PM
Robert,
I completely agree with you as far as the problem solving goes. But the potential for Lightwave to really come into it's own by combining these two programs is just so exciting & I think that if done correctly, it could finally get Lightwave back on an even plane with the other guys. Granted, there is a mind boggling amount of work that needs to go into it to bring this capability into reality, but, as I said before. I worked very closely with programmers years ago on Proprietary 3D software... Aim 3D from Microtime..
I was the user interface guy. And when I asked the programmers to do things that at the time we thought were impossible, they'd put their heads together curse a little, no, allot, and after much head banging and 1000s of lines of code with a little give n take thrown in, give me the tools I asked for....I know it's not easy, but at least it's possible..........:thumbsup: