PDA

View Full Version : New 3D app now available....



Pages : [1] 2

Snosrap
05-24-2006, 11:07 PM
Just downloaded and installed m*d* 201. My first impression? LW is in good shape. Loaded some LW scenes to see what it could do and it's dog slow. Moving objects and cameras and lights are very slow and not very intuitive. FPrime is much faster than their "I-View". Rendering is OK, but not what they cracked it up to be. I think 9 will be on par or better. I loaded a scene with many textures and it took a long time to load and then the textures came in as a real long list of named text, rather confusing at this point and on large scenes may be a real challenge to keep track of. Naturally I just started with it, but my first thought is that I wasted some major coin, luckily for me I have some cash coming my way from a LW job. I'll play around with it some more, but in no way look for it to take over my LW workflow. LW is alive and well.

Cheers
Snos

Lord Snarebotto
05-24-2006, 11:38 PM
Yeah, I'm still playing about with the 101 demo, and I'm not finding the workflow intuitive at all. Looked like a great way to save about a grand....you know, by not buying it.

Cheers

oDDity
05-25-2006, 01:22 AM
Modo has some really great ideas in it, but it failed to lure me from lightwave.
For orgranic modeling particualrly, which is what I do, modo is way below LW.

Titus
05-25-2006, 08:54 AM
oDDity: Your models are really great!

Matt
05-25-2006, 09:20 AM
Not that it's any concern on this LIGHTWAVE forum, but I'll be checking out the demo, can't hurt right?

But I don't regret buying the LW9 upgrade for one second, and the LW9 cycle will prove to be very interesting I feel, I've invested too much in LW to bin it just when things are getting good again!

But having some stiff competition is a very good thing, keeps NT on their toes!

Just my thoughts!

Emmanuel
05-25-2006, 09:44 AM
"Modeling at the speed of thought" is a bit exaggerated, only zBrush allows for that :)
modo's cool new modeling tools (pen tool) look seriously great, though...and the renderer seems absolutely gorgeous.

ingo
05-25-2006, 10:05 AM
The renderer doesn't convince me, it looks like C4D's renderer, too cg'ish.

Lightwolf
05-25-2006, 10:36 AM
The renderer doesn't convince me, it looks like C4D's renderer, too cg'ish.
Lol... good one. Especially since the app hasn't even been released for 24 hours yet...
How long did it take until the first really good LW render showed up?
You can also bet that a lot of the tech is quite similar to LW...

Cheers,
Mike

yazan
05-25-2006, 11:38 AM
IMHO I think modo 201 is a success. It is what was promised. I use an enjoy LW and find no reason anyone should be afraid of anyone. But I found the new instancing generators, painting, integrated I-View, SSS and the very clean rendering to be a big plus. Michael is right about the renders, right now everyone is still testing the waters with every single option just to get a feel of it. Even the beta renders were still sort of testing things out. Time will tell how realistic renders will lok, if that's what you are looking for. And as mentioned earlier, it wouldn't hurt to try a demo out sometime.

Yazan

Matt
05-25-2006, 11:58 AM
I think the renderer will be quite capable of creating photoreal, grimy looking scenes TBH, wouldn't worry about that.

Mylenium
05-25-2006, 12:03 PM
Just downloaded and installed m*d* 201. My first impression? LW is in good shape. Loaded some LW scenes to see what it could do and it's dog slow. Moving objects and cameras and lights are very slow and not very intuitive. FPrime is much faster than their "I-View". Rendering is OK, but not what they cracked it up to be. I think 9 will be on par or better. I loaded a scene with many textures and it took a long time to load and then the textures came in as a real long list of named text, rather confusing at this point and on large scenes may be a real challenge to keep track of. Naturally I just started with it, but my first thought is that I wasted some major coin, luckily for me I have some cash coming my way from a LW job. I'll play around with it some more, but in no way look for it to take over my LW workflow. LW is alive and well.

Cheers
Snos

A bit premature, don't you think? I have to agree with Micheal - it's complete nonsense to expect perfect renders from a program that has been available for not even 24 hours. Once we all learn how to tame the beast, things will surely improve.

I agree, though, that iView isn't what I believed it to be. It's rather flakey and could need improvement.

Mylenium

pixym
05-25-2006, 12:35 PM
I will give it a try when I finish my actual architectural competition...

oDDity
05-25-2006, 12:39 PM
No one is denying that modo is, and will be, a great 3d app, but the modo users are some of the biggest fanboys I've ever heard, and try to convince everyone that modo is the greatest program ever written, and anyone who doesn't 'convert' to it is somehow mentally backward.
We'd all love to see some of those nifty features in LW though, thats for sure....

mouse_art
05-25-2006, 01:12 PM
Yes some of those peoples are there, but here also, thats for sure. ;)


No one is denying that modo is, and will be, a great 3d app, but the modo users are some of the biggest fanboys I've ever heard, and try to convince everyone that modo is the greatest program ever written, and anyone who doesn't 'convert' to it is somehow mentally backward.
We'd all love to see some of those nifty features in LW though, thats for sure....

duderender
05-25-2006, 01:26 PM
but the modo users are some of the biggest fanboys I've ever heard, and try to convince everyone that modo is the greatest program ever written, and anyone who doesn't 'convert' to it is somehow mentally backward.


That's too rich... especially coming form a Lightwave forum... don't put that mirror away quite yet... come on.. chastising modo users for being fanboys.. LOL look around to a lot of the Lightwave users' posts...

too rich man.. at least I had a chuckle... pot calling the kettle black... nice.

Mylenium
05-25-2006, 01:37 PM
No one is denying that modo is, and will be, a great 3d app, but the modo users are some of the biggest fanboys I've ever heard, and try to convince everyone that modo is the greatest program ever written, and anyone who doesn't 'convert' to it is somehow mentally backward.

...a song I'm hearing more often in LW circles than I ever have heard it from modo users. You see, there's no point in starting this little dance all over. If you're happy with LW, then that's fine but please give at least some credit to the fact that we have chosen modo for solid reasons and not because it's a way of life.

Mylenium

Lewis
05-25-2006, 01:42 PM
Calm down boys and girls :). This is LightWave forum not modo :). Only thing what would i said is that IMHO modo is little overpriced (895$) and rest is pretty nice from what i've seen in demos/videos. But since this is LW forum it wouldn't be good to start flame wars X vs. Y :). We all can "play nice with others" ;).

oDDity
05-25-2006, 01:53 PM
Of course evryone likes the app they use, but they're in a completely different league of fanboyism. I've spent some time over at the lux forum, and some of those guys have turned fanboyism into an art form.

Chuck
05-25-2006, 01:55 PM
Please keep just to discussing the topic, rather than commenting on personalities (anyone's, for any reason) and characterizing one another's behavior (or anyone else's, for any reason).

Edited for clarification.

JeffRutan
05-25-2006, 03:14 PM
I plan to give modo 201 a fair trial just as I have been doing with LightWave for the past several months (and soon FPrime). The only way to do that is to embrace all that it is (not try to make it be something it is not or something you already know) and do some training and a significant project using each. In the end I will probably continue to use and keep both programs current.
The current price (about $900) for modo does seem high to me for an incomplete package, but since FPrime is really required to make LightWave fully useable, the entry price for LW is really about $1300.
-Jeff

Lightwolf
05-25-2006, 03:27 PM
The current price (about $900) for modo does seem high to me for an incomplete package, but since FPrime is really required to make LightWave fully useable, the entry price for LW is really about $1300.
-Jeff
Hm, so what is the modo 201 entry price for people that need to animate? ;)

Note: I absolutely agree with the fair trial, but the price comparison is utterly flawed :D

Cheers,
Mike

Panikos
05-25-2006, 04:20 PM
Personaly I have a different relation with every app and I have been using a combination of tools for some years.

Coincidentally, these tools were developed by former Newtek developers (messiah, modo etc) and all the tools are compatible with LW.

Its hard to predict the future. My criterion is how effective and fast I finish something. If one app becomes slow, I have a faster alternative.

:jester:

hrgiger
05-25-2006, 04:21 PM
Please keep just to discussing the topic, rather than commenting on personalities (anyone's, for any reason) and characterizing one another's behavior (or anyone else's, for any reason).

Edited for clarification.

[Question removed, remaining text edited by the moderators. Answer to question: See clarification above]

...I'm not using Modo...I never wanted to pay $900 for something that up to this point was just a modeler.

Lightwolf
05-25-2006, 04:41 PM
Edited by the moderators - response to material that has been removed.

JeffRutan
05-25-2006, 05:13 PM
Hm, so what is the modo 201 entry price for people that need to animate? ;)

Note: I absolutely agree with the fair trial, but the price comparison is utterly flawed :D

Cheers,
Mike

I never said modo was complete- it is still far from it. I was not trying to compare the prices between the two, I was just pointing out that LW is not a complete package for $900 either. I personally think modo 201 would sell better at about $700 (I paid $600 for it back in February and probably would have passed on it at $900).

For me, one way to look at it is that I paid $600 + $900 + $400 = $1900 (modo + LW + FPrime) for a modo that can animate. ;-) However, the jury is still out for me how much modeling and surfacing and still rendering I will end up doing in LW or modo. I do think I can now safely say that I will not be going back to Carrara for much other than retrieving and converting old projects.

-Jeff

Intuition
05-25-2006, 05:18 PM
OK, you all should know that I am a Lightwave Gusher.

That being said, Modo 201's render is like having maxwell quality images within minutes instead of hours.

I love Lightwave and Modeler and don't think I'll ever leave the Newtek Barn. EVER. But in defense of the 201 render engine. I am sorry but, its quite simply the best I've seen in a while. You get the f-prime style preview and very fast renders even if you use GI, shadows, reflection, refraction, DoF, reflection/refraction blurring, attenuation, etc all in one shot. I still can get a nice size res image in like 7 minutes a frame on a 3.2 GHZ machine.

Please understand, I defend Lightwave as much as I can on every forum and I haven't tested Modo 201 enough to say much about its modeling capabilities as of 201, but we've had the beta here at Eden for awhile and even though I wasn't on the beta, those that were had reported ridiculous quality renders at high resolutions with every feature turned on getting photoreal results in like 12 minutes a frame. There is currently no node based texturing in it though. One of our Artists is using the full release and we are scrutinizing it today.

Now, all that render goodness aside, you can't animate with Modo 201. So, Lightwave still rulz my world for now. So, Modo has merely replaced Maxwell render as my on the side photoreal toy and perhaps its modeling tools will get me out of Modeler sometimes.

Luv Lightwave, but can't I don't think anyone can say bad things about Modo 201's render. The rest is up in the air.

Lightwolf
05-25-2006, 05:27 PM
I never said modo was complete- it is still far from it. I was not trying to compare the prices between the two, I was just pointing out that LW is not a complete package for $900 either.
That's what I was trying to point out. By your logic however, there are only a few complete packages available to start with... Maya surely ain't one (no FPrime).
I guess it depends on how you define complete. Me, being an old schooler, model, animate, render is good enough for a start. Then comes the icing.


I do think I can now safely say that I will not be going back to Carrara for much other than retrieving and converting old projects.

Now _that_ is a positive post ! :D ;)

Cheers,
Mike

prospector
05-25-2006, 08:02 PM
Newtek has no fanboys

They have Extreeeeeeemly dedicated users :thumbsup:

faulknermano
05-25-2006, 08:39 PM
Just downloaded and installed m*d* 201. My first impression? LW is in good shape.


well, not meaning to be a jerk, but first impressions don't last or mean any thing substantial anyway. i thought the same thing about Maya when i started out, and i was kicking and screaming for my first two years. speaking from my experience, an app's power comes from the user understanding the application, and not the application's purported abilities per se.

yes, i have tried modo (when it was 102) and i didn't like it, but only because it's workflow was just so alien to what i've been accustomed to in LW (and my configs are far away from the default LW configs), and what modo brought into the plate didnt seem delicious enough to overhaul my existing workflow. but, Maya, however, with its excellent animation envrionment *was* enough to encourage me (not to mention, of course, that it i HAD to use it for work) to take time and *learn* it through and through.

i'd be more interested in opinions of those people who are equally proficient in modo and LW's modeler.

Snosrap
05-25-2006, 09:44 PM
well, not meaning to be a jerk, but first impressions don't last or mean any thing substantial anyway. i thought the same thing about Maya when i started out, and i was kicking and screaming for my first two years.

i'd be more interested in opinions of those people who are equally proficient in modo and LW's modeler.

I guess I just don't have your stick-to-it-tiveness. Sure I'm going to continue to work with it to see what it can do, but I don't think any LWer needs to worry about not being able to create nice work with LW. My comments and first impressions are just that, comments and first impressions. And I was mainly commenting on it's rendering, scene setup and general sluggishness in the scene portion of the app. I've been using 103 in demo form for some time and am pleased with it's capabilities. We do very little animation (We are a product design studio) and right now in it's current form modo would not cut it in the scene setup and rendering department for us. Modo loads LW scenes so it's very easy to compare interactivity between the two apps and LW beats modo hands down. (In my tests anyway, yours may vary - who knows)

Cheers
Snos

leuey
05-25-2006, 10:32 PM
I've used LW professionaly for about as long as it's been out on everything from TV commercials to game openers and everything it between - and would consider myself an expert in it (whatever that's worth). Lightwave was the best investment I've ever made professionaly, and what LW is good at it's VERY good at.

In terms of workflow and functionality for modeling and rendering there's very little LW can do that Modo can't (mostly based on 3rd party plugins and scripts) - but there are a myriad of things Modo can do that LW can't under any condition with any number of plugins.

If you just do modeling and layout I'm a little surprised you haven't given Modo more time. It is a little odd at first (coming from LW and Maya it definately took me a while) - but once you 'get' it (the action centers, falloffs, toolpipe, workplane, macros, command system) you can really fly.

In terms of Scene layout I agree that Layout is better at 'layout' (shocking : )) - you can really fly around in the camera and light views in LW. However, it's not that much faster than Modo and severally limited with a complete lack of modelling, painting, and instancing tools. Modo's UI is also a generation ahead for dealing with layout situations.

The Modo renderer is vastly superior to LW's (I won't bother to go into a 5 page litany of why) - which is to be expected. The guy that wrote LW's a decade ago probably learned a thing or two in-between before writing Modo's. F-Prime is another matter, and I'm sure Allen and Steve will have fun competing against each other.

All that being said - there's no real reason to switch over if LW works for you. Also, they complement each other very well (.lwo format, right?) I have modellers who cling to LW like a life preserver and they're **** good at it - there's just no reason for them to switch. But for the software junkie/3D geek - Modo is where it's at right now. Once you get past version 6 or 7 (in any software) it tends to get pretty stale.

FWIW,

Greg

(haven't been around here for a while - I think I'm gonna buy one them there Tricasters.. : ))

edit: they bleep out [email protected]? Is this website still run from Kansas? sheesh.




Modo loads LW scenes so it's very easy to compare interactivity between the two apps and LW beats modo hands down. (In my tests anyway, yours may vary - who knows)

Cheers
Snos

ingo
05-26-2006, 01:53 AM
Lol... good one. Especially since the app hasn't even been released for 24 hours yet...
How long did it take until the first really good LW render showed up?
You can also bet that a lot of the tech is quite similar to LW...

Cheers,
Mike

Hi Mike,

well the app is around for half a year now and the beta renderings were not so impressive, especially compared to the fast Kray renderings. One thing from Modo i'd like to see in LW and that is scripting, the perl scripts work very well and easily in Modo.
And yes, the interface is definitly alien, but what do i know, i work with FormZ ;)

Lightwolf
05-26-2006, 02:17 AM
Hi Mike,

well the app is around for half a year now and the beta renderings were not so impressive, especially compared to the fast Kray renderings.
If I'm not mistaken the app was in beta until shortly, so I doubt it was ready for production even half a year ago.
Hm, so does Kray include a completely new surfacing paradigm as well? I guess even getting used to the way that shader tree works will take long enough, never mind the actual rendering.
Cheers,
Mike

colkai
05-26-2006, 02:59 AM
Newtek has no fanboys

They have Extreeeeeeemly dedicated users :thumbsup:

Hey, at least I don't want to marry it though ;) :p
Gotta say, I don't envy anyone in the 3D game these days, the cheap (Hex2) and free (Wings/Blender) software is getting so poweful it must be a major headache for anyone in the business.

I've never quite figured out how folks can write such stuff for free, same with LW plugins. That said, I am mighty happy we do have such folks, (not least of which PICTRIX who rocks).

Anyhoo, the new 3D app in question will not be arriving on my HD anytime soon, if at all and cost is a big factor in that. Just spend $52 on software which will help me a great deal, seemed more sensible. :p

ingo
05-26-2006, 05:15 AM
If I'm not mistaken the app was in beta until shortly, so I doubt it was ready for production even half a year ago.
Hm, so does Kray include a completely new surfacing paradigm as well? I guess even getting used to the way that shader tree works will take long enough, never mind the actual rendering.
Cheers,
Mike

Momo has nothing really new, just a different "workflow". The shadertree is nice for simple objects, but for archviz with often more than 50 materials and/or objects it gets confusing with all that masks and layers. I hope some people in the Luxo gallery post some renderspecs with the pictures so one gets a comparsion.

So lets go back to Bryce and make some nice images just out of the box ;)

Lightwolf
05-26-2006, 05:22 AM
Momo has nothing really new, just a different "workflow". The shadertree is nice for simple objects, but for archviz with often more than 50 materials and/or objects it gets confusing with all that masks and layers. I hope some people in the Luxo gallery post some renderspecs with the pictures so one gets a comparsion.
_only_ 50 materials and objects? You should be glad it isn't entirely node based then :D
Seriously though, I think workflow is the key for all apps currently - an area where LW needs a lot of catching up in certain areas as well.

So lets go back to Bryce and make some nice images just out of the box ;)
Lol, yeah, and I'll stick to Poser and... hm, can't think of anything else ;)

ingo
05-26-2006, 05:40 AM
....Seriously though, I think workflow is the key for all apps currently - an area where LW needs a lot of catching up in certain areas as well...

Yes the workflow, definitly something where some of my clients need a lot of catching up ;)
I would be happy if LWs windows and paneels behave like they normally do in my OS, and that i can save files with names longer than 16 characters ....

Captain Obvious
05-26-2006, 05:45 AM
So far I've only been playing around with 201. I'll come back later with a better respone.

But I CAN tell you one thing: I will NEVER EVER hit F9 in Lightwave again. Not ever. A model of mine made of a couple of hundred thousand polygons (subd level 3) rendered in five minutes with backdrop radiosity in Lightwave. At the same resolution, and with full two-bounce GI in modo 201, I was able to render it with 2.5 million polygons. Holy moly! :eek:

I haven't bothered picking apart my old LW scenes, though. I'm going to build a new arch vis interior as soon as I have the time. It will be interesting to see how 201 stacks up against LW/Kray. One of the reasons I like Lightwave is the surfacing, but it does have its downsides. We'll see how 201 compares.



Ingo:

Regarding 201 vs Kray, I would like to point out that Allen Hastings has implied he'll implement photon mapping in an upcoming release. That should level the playing field, to say the least. I'm having a lot less issues with modo's irradiance caching than with Kray's.

cresshead
05-26-2006, 06:11 AM
of course all here are comparing modo 201 to lightwave 8.5

and NOT modo201 compared to lightwave 9...

one thing that turned me off of modo was the 90degree verticle tab...SO annoying i unistalled the app...if they can't make an out of the box u.i. that is useful..i need not bother to waste anymore time with it...maybe 201 fixed the dumb u.i....and yeah before you all chime in..yes i KNOW you can downoad new iu.i's from users or edit the u.i. to suit...but the BASIC out of the box u.i. in modo101 was poor.

Captain Obvious
05-26-2006, 06:13 AM
I forgot one thing. The 2.5 million model with two-bounce GI rendered in less than two minutes. Compared to the five minutes the backdrop-only GI Ligtwave rendering took.





one thing that turned me off of modo was the 90degree verticle tab...SO annoying i unistalled the app...if they can't make an out of the box u.i. that is useful..i need not bother to waste anymore time with it...maybe 201 fixed the dumb u.i....and yeah before you all chime in..yes i KNOW you can downoad new iu.i's from users or edit the u.i. to suit...but the BASIC out of the box u.i. in modo101 was poor.
Admittedly, I never actually used 101... but 201's default layout is pretty good. It would definitely feel more at home at a widescreen display, but it works just fine on my 1600x1200 display as well. The fact that you can edit the layout on the fly is really awesome. At first, I was sceptical about it. Now, I wouldn't have it any other way.

cresshead
05-26-2006, 06:19 AM
does 201 load up with a verticle tab still?..ir did they fix it?

Lightwolf
05-26-2006, 06:25 AM
does 201 load up with a verticle tab still?..ir did they fix it?
I think that is their design. but honestly, since you can re-configure it easily, that shouldn't be a reason to judge the app. Well, it may be a good excuse to say Maya is c**p too, but it would be just as well founded ;)
(and now don't tell me you love ZBrush ;) ).
Cheers,
Mike

cresshead
05-26-2006, 06:31 AM
i know i'll be seen as 'knitt picking' but having your default u.i. set up to be irritating and to cause people to get a crick in their neck just the read what's on it isn't a great way to get people into your demo program no matter how cool it is...the first few hours will have people 'looking' for buttons and if some of them are not simple to read..your going to put some users off ...

it just reminds me of being in a bookshop...reading the spines of books rather than the covers as the shop owner 'saved space'
on the shelf...

just to add...the first few mins/hours of a new user..they will be trying to create stuff and see what the tools ar elike..and WILL NOT be spending their first few hours fiddling with the u.i. layout to fix basic workflow issues.

get it?....i never got into adding new buttons in lw for about 6 months...with 3ds max i have NEVER added now workflows to the u.i...the basic one works 'as is' and the loadable ones work well too.

Lightwolf
05-26-2006, 06:38 AM
get it?....i never got into adding new buttons in lw for about 6 months...with 3ds max i have NEVER added now workflows to the u.i...the basic one works 'as is' and the loadable ones work well too.
Well, when I loaded up the demo the tabs were the last thing that had me worried, no problems at all.
LW 8.0 was harder to get accustomed to ... and that is coming all the way from 3.5something...

Cheers,
Mike

cresshead
05-26-2006, 06:39 AM
maybe 301 will have the default u.i. usable 'as is' all that needs to be done is to rotate the verticle tab 90 degrees and place it in the top left of the viewport...WHY they thought it was a good idea to make part of the u.i. difficult to read i have no idea...maybe i should email lux on this point?

cresshead
05-26-2006, 06:41 AM
yeah but whith lw 8 they GIVE you a decent option to put it back to look like lw7 and also give the the option to have key shortcuts like lw 7 too....

there's no loadable option in the demo of modo101 to fix the verticle tabs

cresshead
05-26-2006, 06:42 AM
hey weh you get to my age..all the things like this REALLY annoy you!
[me a grumpy old git!]

Lightwolf
05-26-2006, 06:53 AM
yeah but whith lw 8 they GIVE you a decent option to put it back to look like lw7 and also give the the option to have key shortcuts like lw 7 too....

...and you loose all the new tools ;)

there's no loadable option in the demo of modo101 to fix the verticle tabs
Lol... I won't buy the car because the paint of the one in the showroom doesn't go with my sofa! ;)
I think 201 has a couple of UI configs to choose from.

Cheers,
Mike - wondering what your bookshelf looks like...

P.S. I'm an old git as well... that's no excuse though, is it?

cresshead
05-26-2006, 07:04 AM
LOL!

hey..on my book shelf the books are all there showing their spines:D
but you have to understand i KNOW what books i have and iav'e already chosen them for purchase and probably read them all too...and PLACED them
on the shelf in the first place!

in a book store where people are in there to 'SEE WHAT YOU HAVE FOR SALE'
many if not all the top sellers will be there showing their covers not the spines as you don't want people NOT to find the most popular books:agree:
[ohh double negative..opps!]

hey enough of analogy's!

modo sux okay! :D

well until it's got animation timeline, particles, fx, bones, rigging with ik...can load mo cap and have morphs and some lipsync capablilty!

Lightwolf
05-26-2006, 07:08 AM
well until it's got animation timeline, particles, fx, bones, rigging with ik...
Now see, that is something we can actually agree now :D

Cheers,
Mike

cresshead
05-26-2006, 07:14 AM
and you could get :-

1.xsi 5.0 foundation AND z brush 2 for the price of modo201
2.silo,hexagon2 and messiah workstation [rigging/animation/rendering]for less then half the price of modo201

modo is overpriced...should be $199-$299 not $895

Lightwolf
05-26-2006, 07:16 AM
and you could get :-

1.xsi 5.0 foundation AND z brush 2 for the price of modo201
2.silo,hexagon2 and messiah workstation [rigging/animation/rendering]for less then half the price of modo201

It doesn't make sense once you talk multiple workstations and a small renderfarm though...

Mind you, if I had a gig that requires heavy texture painting... I'd probably get it.

Cheers,
Mike

mouse_art
05-26-2006, 09:16 AM
Other preferences ?

I't is not wise to try to "be the market", for you the UI design is maybe bad, but i bet for others the UI is good, and even better if they customize it for their selfs need.

But just to point out, there more layouts just two clicks away.

Do you get my point ? ;)

For me as example maxs UI is crap, BUT that is just my personal preference, nothing more, so i woul'd not judge max because of me because their UI just don't fits to my needs.



maybe 301 will have the default u.i. usable 'as is' all that needs to be done is to rotate the verticle tab 90 degrees and place it in the top left of the viewport...WHY they thought it was a good idea to make part of the u.i. difficult to read i have no idea...maybe i should email lux on this point?


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

You could, yes, but just learn three apps at the same time....cool i hope hou have a long vacation

I just don't see a valid point why you have a problems with modo besides you are a LW user(me too btw), you are judging software on a strange way just to remind you on the spinquad thread with hex. ;)


and you could get :-

1.xsi 5.0 foundation AND z brush 2 for the price of modo201
2.silo,hexagon2 and messiah workstation [rigging/animation/rendering]for less then half the price of modo201

modo is overpriced...should be $199-$299 not $895



Everyone should use what he likes but evertime to say that is crap that rules ect is just a bad thing ,use you app and be happy.

Heh my friend i use LW too and i like every of my apps. because everyone has their strengths and weaknesses.

leuey
05-26-2006, 09:32 AM
How is it confusing? You have a list - that's harder than a bunch of shader ball icons? The hypergraph is a PITA with that many objects - you have to zoom in to read the names of the icons and can only get a dozen on the screen at once.

Have you even used it? You can collapse layers and group things however you want - need the textures for the red chair? Find the group that says 'Red Chair' - that's not confusing.

-Greg



Momo has nothing really new, just a different "workflow". The shadertree is nice for simple objects, but for archviz with often more than 50 materials and/or objects it gets confusing with all that masks and layers. I hope some people in the Luxo gallery post some renderspecs with the pictures so one gets a comparsion.

So lets go back to Bryce and make some nice images just out of the box ;)

Intuition
05-26-2006, 12:06 PM
Yeh, 201 was a little confusing to me at first but I got it figured out pretty fast. Its really not much different then Lightwave as far as my workflow goes.

We have layers in modeler, Meshes in Modo.

You can name materials in modo the same way you name surfaces in Lightwave.

My only proplem with Modo, and I am sure it cause of lack of experience with the renderer, is that there are numerous settings for rendering. If you don't know how they work together you can get really messy and noisy images. It is confusing to me right now. I figured out that many of the numerical values make better quality when you set them low like 0.1 and 0.5% in stead of high as I am used to. I like how in Lightwave you can just set the aliasing level and it will make an image based on that setting. If 201 had a high, medium, low quality render presets it would be less confusing and you could compare the differences between the settinsg to get a better grasp of what the numerical values are doing. This will probably be addressed when the manual comes out ;)

A better comparison would be that of Lw9 and 201 if we are talking about the modeling tools though.

Since Eden may be beta testing 301 within the next year, I don't know yet...just a highly likely possibility, maybe we can convince the Lux guys to implement a node based system for shading. I like 201's layering so far but when you make texture maps you have to make many instances of the same texture to apply to each channel (spec, diffuse, trans). This is no different then LW in the sense that you have to go to each channels texture button and put the same textures in that way, its just that I think you could optimize the workflow with a nodal based system. My recent use of such systems :lwicon: ;) wink , wink, say no more, has shown me that it is really powerful.

Well, regardless, Lightwave is still the main bread winner and another thing to mention is that 201 is so compatible with LW that I have opened LWO models in 201 with all the texturing/surfacing intact. This I like alot.

GregMalick
05-26-2006, 01:16 PM
LW9 & Modo201 are just tools.

There ought to be a corollary to "It's a poor craftsman who blames his tools" that says:

"It's a poor craftsman who criticizes another man's tools"

Modo201 is a mighty fine tool - I like it alot.
then again - I liked M102 alot.
then again - I like LW7.5 on up.

There are good features in Toyotas and Mustangs and they cost over 10 times as much - yet families can own both without much harrassment.

Anyway M201 modeling & paint tools are great. And if they opened up their SDK you would get cool 3rd party tools like Pictrix and TrueArt provide. But I really like the feel of that product (and the new car smell too). :D


My only proplem with Modo, and I am sure it cause of lack of experience with the renderer, is that there are numerous settings for rendering. If you don't know how they work together you can get really messy and noisy images. It is confusing to me right now. I figured out that many of the numerical values make better quality when you set them low like 0.1 and 0.5% in stead of high as I am used to. I like how in Lightwave you can just set the aliasing level and it will make an image based on that setting. If 201 had a high, medium, low quality render presets it would be less confusing and you could compare the differences between the settinsg to get a better grasp of what the numerical values are doing. This will probably be addressed when the manual comes out
Intuition - once you find the render settings you like - you can probably record those settings with a macro and get the high, medium, low quality render presets at the touch of a button (well mouse button).



Back to topic, I'm glad there are great software products out there - and glad they are competing to be the best at the most affordable prices. I believe the companies know their own strengths & weaknesses (in product & developers) and plan accordingly. That's why I think you see a focus in LW9 on rendering and nodal surfacing. I know a couple people still using LW simply for it's render farm capabilities. Newtek is playing to a LW strength. I would guess that LW10 will focus on the CA "gnashing of teeth" I've been hearing for the last couple of years.

Who knows - maybe we'll be seeing some incredible new CA techniques coming out in the next few years.
Who knows maybe some new concepts from some 3rd part develepers.
Who knows ---- could even be me. ;)

with aloha
:jam:

Chuck
05-26-2006, 02:51 PM
...its just that I think you could optimize the workflow with a nodal based system. My recent use of such systems :lwicon: ;) wink , wink, say no more, has shown me that it is really powerful.

LightWave v9 Open Beta participants are now permitted to discuss LightWave v9, so, by all means, "say more"! :)

Chris S. (Fez)
05-26-2006, 03:08 PM
Upgrade before the end of the month or you will regret it:D !

I was skeptical at the start of the BETA, but Newtek really came through. The new displacement and nodal surfacing LW 9 is shockingly cool.

LW 9 is not the fanciest package out there, but it is STABLE and production proven and getting better and FASTER at a riproaring pace. Being part of the Beta allowed me to see first hand that the future really is going to be great for Lightwavers.

Thank you Newtek!

RedBull
05-26-2006, 03:57 PM
Modo201 definatley looks the part....

The renderer is the best renderer i've seen since Brazil's release.
And is definately an improvement, over the LW renderer...
Speed and Quality has easily been improved over LW.
Modelling Tools, intergrated, well rounded and smartly thought out..

PAINT Tools, which LW badly missed out on....
Aura2.5 was getting UV mapping LW Objects, than it was onsold to Bahaus and NT users miss out..... Aura should of become LW Paint....

Modo does have the best Painting tools, and for that it will find a niche market. People will use the renderer and the modeling tools, because it has the best paint system, even if it's still got some way to go in displacement and Zbrush style painting...

Price is more expensive, but Modo does contain a few enhancements
over LW..... Interactive Realtime Instancing, for geometry and rendering.
That's surpasses HD Instance, Iview which is a Fprime knock off..1..
Mesh painting, Edge slide, smooth one click UV's....

It's like what LW would be, if they rebuilt it from the ground up.... :)
And considering NT's Parrallel changeover methodology was likely the wrong one... In 2+ years Lux have put more thought into Modo, than 5 years of NT have put into LW.....

With the advent of 64bit, LW has some problems getting all of those old third party tools ported to 64bit, the ability to not rely on third parties and scripts
means Modo and XSI have a nice advantage over programs like Max and LW...

NT should of consolidated 1000's of Modeler tools, into a couple....
One tools with 15 different contraint and option modes, not 15 different tools
with 1 constraint and option mode.... These are some of the advantages i see in Modo..... Bevels, Selections, everything.....

Everytime i need to do something in Modeler it requires a script or plugin...

Yesterday i needed to select a bunch of polys in Modeler, LW does not have an option to select poly's via the -x axis....

So many little things, and feature requests that NT need to be pushed and harrassed, that should be on their .x to do lists anyway.....

LW9 looks great and is more band-aids piled on top of so many cuts and bruises...... Modo is the same thing, but with a rejuvinated core.....
Something we've all wanted LW to have for many years, but have not been provided with..

LW's just not going in the correct places for my business, anywhere near fast enough...... XSI and Modo seem to have the right focus on the correct areas.


NT needed to provide Worley and third parties with much better access and abilities, they did not provide such enhancements, and as such will likely see an influx of Modo sales, steal LW9 thunder....

They did not embrace the golden opportunity provided to them by their third parties, they ignored them....

NT's line is they want to develop their own renderer......

Well considering how many light years Fprime, Maxwell SunFlow, MR, Kray, Vray, Brazil, and now Modo are in front with their iterative, progressive refinement renderers with physical aspects too.... Again a 2.5 speed increase makes LW9 still 50 times slower than the competition.....
I understand the development troubles NT have had, but that can no longer be an excuse.

I will use LW in conjunction with many other tools for a long time to come,
as LW still does many production things, quicker than many of the comp....
But those days seem to be shrinking, and new tools like Silo2 and Modo
will likely still some time away from Modeler and LW.....

This is not an attempt to discredit LW, as i use it everyday....
But just to say, finally after all these years, LW faces some serious competition from new players and new technology.....
That can only be a good thing......

They are just tools, and all of them work......
XSI could not steal me away from Modeler....
But Modo201 probally will....

cresshead
05-26-2006, 04:18 PM
i think someone best described the render advancement [addon] of modo in that if you only need a 'still image' then modo's new renderer is good competition for maxwell renderer from next limit...to say it put's lightwaves in the shade 'scuse the punn!] is rather short sighted in that modo has ZERO capability to use that new shiny renderer for film/tv or web use with animations other than a turntable...now that's limited!...and to say iview is Fprime in modo doesn't hold a single drop of water when you compare the fact that fprim is MADE for animation with radiosity...modo is stuck in the 60's as the renderer on a record deck! [turn table]

i have no doubt that modo has major plans for ALL tools we need to finally get it together...but when will that be?....2009?

Celshader
05-26-2006, 04:23 PM
Different strokes for different folks. At work we could not have pulled off the RealFlow->LW pipeline we've got now without the documentation of the LightWave object file format in the LW SDK and the documentation of the *.bin file formats in the RealFlow SDK.

We also probably wouldn't be able to pull off some of the more massive shots without LW64.

An open SDK and 64-bit capabilities mean a lot to me right now, and modo still doesn't offer either. This does not bode well for its future. :(

Lightwolf
05-26-2006, 04:35 PM
An open SDK and 64-bit capabilities mean a lot to me right now, and modo still doesn't offer either. This does not bode well for its future. :(
Well, I think both will come. Frankly, why set things in stone _now_ for a painting modeler that renders (SDK wise)?
64bit I'd like to see sooner rather than later... :D

Cheers,
mike

RedBull
05-26-2006, 04:48 PM
I agree CelShader......

Modo needs a public SDK, quickly.....

There was once a page on the Lux site, saying SDK coming soon
this was around the time lanuch of 102..... It's since been removed
and since then only talk of an SDK has existed. I'm sure it will come....

64bit is another area where XSI shines...
The talk of all this next generation codebase and "nexus" sound great,
but it almost sounds like Lux are determined to at least make some of the same mistakes again....... I already here of people maxing out the Modo render and getting hitting memory limits in the first day of release....
Somebody did not think that through very well.....

Because LW64 is not really viable on all jobs due to no 64bit procedurals, shaders, or third party plugins.. Luxology and Modo would of definately made me look at a much quicker transition to Modo, if i could of had all of those third party modeling tools and scripts in an integrated and 64bit program....
At least NT have got their 64bit stuff already moving.....

XSI64 is quite a huge leap in performance, if Modo could of launched with 64bit and perhaps some talk of the SDK..... It would of been a far more attractive buy for myself. (they seem to hint at January for Modo64)

Considering it was also 6months overdue for release....
Luxology don't feel me with complete confidence as a company.
Modo201 is nice, but it's far from perfect..... Time will tell....

Cresshead: You would need to buy HD-Instance, Meshpaint and Fprime
to equal some of the built in tools like Instancing, Meshpaint, and Iview in Modo.... Being my point.... Extra cost is needed for LW, to buy tools
that don't work with all other areas of LW..... Fprime and HD Instance...
Something like G2 or Hypersmooth, Spectrum as well for absorbtion etc..

Modo has the newer codebase, which means most bits actually are allowed to comminicate with all the other bits of Modo, something LW can't do...
I would still animate using LW's unlimited rendernodes for animation,
but if Modo's renderer can view as i model and save me time on setup, i have more time to allow LW renders too....

There is still plenty of work to do in Modo, before it's anywhere near able to replace many of LW's uses.... But 201 definatelty is a step forward from 103.

cresshead
05-26-2006, 05:10 PM
I



Cresshead: You would need to buy HD-Instance, Meshpaint and Fprime
to equal some of the built in tools like Instancing, Meshpaint, and Iview in Modo.... Being my point.... Extra cost is needed for LW, to buy tools
that don't work with all other areas of LW..... Fprime and HD Instance...
Something like G2 or Hypersmooth, Spectrum as well for absorbtion etc..

Modo has the newer codebase, which means most bits actually are allowed to comminicate with all the other bits of Modo, something LW can't do...
I would still animate using LW's unlimited rendernodes for animation,
but if Modo's renderer can view as i model and save me time on setup, i have more time to allow LW renders too....

There is still plenty of work to do in Modo, before it's anywhere near able to replace many of LW's uses.... But 201 definatelty is a step forward from 103.


you can level that observation right back on modo's doorstep too!
you need to export out of modo to use it for animation...so losing all that nice renderer...no nice proceduals anymore...then import into maya [$1999] to rigup and animate and renderout in maya's renderman [additional $795]
it's a mute point maybe...:agree:

modo's renderer and surfacing are of only limited use for a still picture..okay for webgraphics or print to SOME degree...if you want to have particles in your still render from modo your out of luck right now...you'll need to buy lightwave!or maya or max or cinema...modo has no particle generator ...no sure about volumetrics either...i've seen caustics in modo though.

aslo your comment about talking to each other [parts of the app] if you read what's now in lw 9 and what's planned with new modular aspects of lightwave from 9 onward [started in lw 8 btw] your actually seeing a similar thing to what modo is trying to do...modular stuff...just like maya and xsi.

modo is a nice modeler by all accounts...but so is silo...and hexagon [once the bugs are ironed out] will be another very competative product

as for needing hd instance...i've not needed it so far...
as for f prime..i have it and it's nice but i don't NEED it in every scene i create with lightwave.

i will add i also have
xsi4.2 [not used it in any production as yet..just a play thing currently]
3dsmax 8.3...use it nr everyday just like lightwave
hexagon2...looks cool but a bit buggy
silo..got it though with lw i don't really use it ever...

my A team is lightwave and 3dsmax...used together or on their own depending on the scene i'm making...

not used f prime for any production rendering as yet..but i plan to!:thumbsup:

also back onto modo's renderer...try this...your client loves your fantastic render you made in modo with those stunning procedual surfaces and displacement fx..he then asks you create a tv spot just like that but with a animated product...
what you going to do?

...yeah...your right back in lightwave!....the whole deal not part of a bit of a deal...ish...
if i had modo's renderer i'd NOT use it for clients as many times they put me in the postion that i'd have to re start making a scene from scratch back in lightwave or 3dsmax

the renderer in modo is a 'not production capable' aspect of modo...the model's you make ARE but i darn't use the renderer if i had ANY hints that maybe...just maybe my client would like an animation....or some fx...or rigged posed characters in a still...
...the modo renderer would be the maker of nightmares!

ahhh!

mouse_art
05-26-2006, 05:13 PM
but it almost sounds like Lux are determined to at least make some of the same mistakes again....... I already here of people maxing out the Modo render and getting hitting memory limits in the first day of release....
Somebody did not think that through very well.....


Yep, but that's now mostly cleared up, you cant render huge scenes with a huge amount polygons without change the settings for the micropoly displacement. :P (IMO the same with LW9 and APS)


On this point XSI(32 or 64 bit doesn't matter really) is nice with their memory management that just works, with less ram, if you will.
Sure it will take longer to render, but still it will render.
I mean their Gigapolygon Core, and it works i tried it out, 100millions of micropolygons(or more) no problem it works. *g*

RedBull
05-26-2006, 05:45 PM
you can level that observation right back on modo's doorstep too!
you need to export out of modo to use it for animation...so losing all that nice renderer...no nice proceduals anymore...then import into maya [$1999] to rigup and animate and renderout in maya's renderman [additional $795]
it's a mute point maybe...:agree:

modo's renderer and surfacing are of only limited use for a still picture..okay for webgraphics or print to SOME degree...if you want to have particles in your still render from modo your out of luck right now...you'll need to buy lightwave!or maya or max or cinema...modo has no particle generator ...no sure about volumetrics either...i've seen caustics in modo though.

aslo your comment about talking to each other [parts of the app] if you read what's now in lw 9 and what's planned with new modular aspects of lightwave from 9 onward [started in lw 8 btw] your actually seeing a similar thing to what modo is trying to do...modular stuff...just like maya and xsi.

modo is a nice modeler by all accounts...but so is silo...and hexagon [once the bugs are ironed out] will be another very competative product

as for needing hd instance...i've not needed it so far...
as for f prime..i have it and it's nice but i don't NEED it in every scene i create with lightwave.

i will add i also have
xsi4.2 [not used it in any production as yet..just a play thing currently]
3dsmax 8.3...use it nr everyday just like lightwave
hexagon2...looks cool but a bit buggy
silo..got it though with lw i don't really use it ever...

my A team is lightwave and 3dsmax...used together or on their own depending on the scene i'm making...

not used f prime for any production rendering as yet..but i plan to!:thumbsup:

also back onto modo's renderer...try this...your client loves your fantastic render you made in modo with those stunning procedual surfaces and displacement fx..he then asks you create a tv spot just like that but with a animated product...
what you going to do?

...yeah...your right back in lightwave!....the whole deal not part of a bit of a deal...ish...
if i had modo's renderer i'd NOT use it for clients as many times they put me in the postion that i'd have to re start making a scene from scratch back in lightwave or 3dsmax

the renderer in modo is a 'not production capable' aspect of modo...the model's you make ARE but i darn't use the renderer if i had ANY hints that maybe...just maybe my client would like an animation....or some fx...or rigged posed characters in a still...
...the modo renderer would be the maker of nightmares!

ahhh!

You seem to assume that anyone who uses LW is using it soley for CA/TV/FILM, and that's simply stupid, in a lot of places, Modo and or LW Layout or Modeler are just tools in a pipeline to get the job done..

Companies like DD will choose what tool or software product, depending on the needs of the shots, scene and complexity required.... They will use Particle FX in Maya and Modeling in LW.......

They won't go and buy Modo for it's particle system... :)

I will continue to use XSI, LW and likely Modo.... I don't need Maya or Max.
Those tools cover my main 3D needs. LW can't paint....

In terms of procedurals,, Baking solves any of the problems you mentioned.
I often make UV's in Modo and surface in Modeler....
Basically everything you argue, can be reversed, it works both ways...

In terms of LW being more modular, if i see one more person believe NT's marketing hype on their SDK enhancements, i'm gonna scream....
It's become the boy who cries wolf, to the point i just don't care or believe if they tell me improvements coming, others are already providing them.....

Until Fprime 2.5 does volumetrics, shaders, caustics
supports Zdepth and Network rendering, it's still not a full production system either, mainly because NT have to provide better access which is not a priority for them.

LW's architecture will never allow it to communicate like Modern cores should.
It's too old, stuff like legacy shaders will never talk to other areas....
It was not designed too.... Hence the reason why Lux left and created a whole new core, because they needed too.
Many of the idea and possibilities of Modo, just can't be done in LW..
(in it's current guise)

LW wen't parrallel changeover, to avoid upsetting their userbase,
Modo when ground up rebuild, it's obvious at the progress Modo has made from
103 to 201... Compared to LW8.x to LW 9.x

Lux's ground up rebuild has gained leaps and bounds, NT once again decided to
buy other peoples band-aids to provide any enhancements at all....
APS, Nodal, R2 were already made.... You wonder how Lux made all that
and NT managed to only port other peoples plugins in the same amount of time

Hexagon is absolute rubbish in comparison to Modo201...
And i would not even spend $1.99 for it's features. :)

Like i said, Modo201 is not a replacement for LW.....
Not yet at least...... But it's sure nice to have some more modern options for modeling and painting now....

I'm so sick of surfacing in Lightwave due to a stupid problem which means everytime i open the surface editor, the first surface is selected, instead of the last used surface.... It's these kinds of workflow issues that are just ignored by NT... .I don't know why we have a feature request or bug list, when in years nothing is fixed or improved anyway......

1000's of these little workflow tweaks, that NT should of done without any prompting from any of us, it's just like some of these people have never tried
to do anything in LW..... Try and select multiple parts or surfaces in Modeler.
from the "w" stats panel.... One surface at a time, 5 mouse clicks per time...
How about multi editing stuff like lights or shaders in Layout...
Years and not any progress.....

The fact that i don't have to rely on NT to attend to these problems,
is a good thing...... It means if it's not fixed, i can just use other tools that do. One can only hope Autodesk's Maya64 will be the new 3DStudio Max.

As this means Modo, XSI and Maya/Max would all be modern codebase.
and newer next generation tools can be made, rather than older generation tools being remade... I think it's about time.

Celshader
05-26-2006, 05:52 PM
I don't know why we have a feature request or bug list, when in years nothing is fixed or improved anyway......

Y'know, HyperVoxels were made by the old team. HyperVoxels had many, many bugs that were not fixed by the old team.

In LW9.0, most of those HyperVoxel bugs are GONE. The new team fixed them. The new team has fixed what the old team could not fix.

RedBull
05-26-2006, 07:26 PM
Y'know, HyperVoxels were made by the old team. HyperVoxels had many, many bugs that were not fixed by the old team.

In LW9.0, most of those HyperVoxel bugs are GONE. The new team fixed them. The new team has fixed what the old team could not fix.

I can't say HV bugs apart from the refraction ones introduced over the 8.x cycle ever bothered me. Bugs are one thing, workflow issues are another.....
I love LW, use it daily and also write plugins and scripts for it on a daily basis,
it's an amazing program, i just think it will never find it's full potential.
Newtek does not have the resources of a Autodesk or Avid...

I've been here for over ten years, and it's moving to slow to what it once was
when LW5.x was made and even up to LW7, i was fairly happy with the progress, since then it's slowed. I think the 6.x rebuild didn't go quite far enough though.

Dev teams are a cop-out, as a consumer, and business manager....
Newtek and LW are my resposibility, not which team is developing it...
NT made a push for VT and hardware to be their focus, some years back
and left their flagship model to scavenge for attention...

I know from talking to many of the people and former and current dev staff..
What i need from LW, is not easily done without a complete rewrite.
A Parralallel changeover is okay, but LW has all the right bits, it just needs
a stronger more future proof core.....

This is why Maya was made, and this is why Softimage became XSI...
And why Autodesk are replacing the old Max with the new Maya....
This marketplace has changed in the last 10 years, Visual FX and 3D movies
have made box office gold, it's only natural that an evolution has to occur.

Take Nodal for example, Great idea but was it implemented fully?
Do clipmaps use Nodal, do HV and texture environment have access to Nodal
or does the new Nodal system have a half implemented systems, which work in some areas of LW, but not others.... And we will be assurred that it will be eventually made avialable everywhere.

Anyway this is not a ***** session on LW....

LW will remain in place as my 3D stronghold, but i will be adding newer tools to my pipeline.. Only really in frustration that NT and LW can't keep up...
That's not saying NT suck or LW crap, or the new dev team are crap....

For me Fprime saved LW8.x cycle for me... Modo201 will likely only take more time away from LW9 than currently. I think this will be quite common...
I think far too many people get upset about, tools....

I can't help but look at Modo201 and think LW9.x should of offered some of the radical thinking that Lux has.......

So i'm kind of glad to have the choice for LW9 and Modo201, than just LW9.
That's my real point i guess....

I feel like Newtek need to pull out all stops over the 9.x cycle...
I mean C4D's Hypergraph and Hair, Sky have all been useful features to C4D.
all over the 9.x cycle.

NT have the ability to take advantage of the Autodesk MaxYa downtime...
I imagine the 3D industry is going to be in meltdown, once that hits...
XSI and MaxYa will have markets totally to themselves.
Having the common renderer in MR, will mean Studio's will have a standard renderer... And marketshare you can take from them, in this time of uncertainty is worthwhile. Anyway enough of my dribble... :)

Celshader
05-26-2006, 07:39 PM
I've been here for over ten years, and it's moving to slow to what it once was when LW5.x was made and even up to LW7, i was fairly happy with the progress, since then it's slowed. I think the 6.x rebuild didn't go quite far enough though.

I've been here for nine years. For me, 9.0 is a bigger jump from 8.5 than 8.5 is from 6.0.

Intuition
05-26-2006, 09:31 PM
.......edit...for space....clipped.....

Anyway this is not a ***** session on LW....

LW will remain in place as my 3D stronghold, but i will be adding newer tools to my pipeline.. Only really in frustration that NT and LW can't keep up...
That's not saying NT suck or LW crap, or the new dev team are crap....

For me Fprime saved LW8.x cycle for me... Modo201 will likely only take more time away from LW9 than currently. I think this will be quite common...
I think far too many people get upset about, tools....

I can't help but look at Modo201 and think LW9.x should of offered some of the radical thinking that Lux has.......

So i'm kind of glad to have the choice for LW9 and Modo201, than just LW9.
That's my real point i guess....

I feel like Newtek need to pull out all stops over the 9.x cycle...
I mean C4D's Hypergraph and Hair, Sky have all been useful features to C4D.
all over the 9.x cycle.

NT have the ability to take advantage of the Autodesk MaxYa downtime...
I imagine the 3D industry is going to be in meltdown, once that hits...
XSI and MaxYa will have markets totally to themselves.
Having the common renderer in MR, will mean Studio's will have a standard renderer... And marketshare you can take from them, in this time of uncertainty is worthwhile. Anyway enough of my dribble... :)


Ah, leave it to Redbull to put give an accurate perspective on the situation. :thumbsup:

Looking at Modo 201's engine is like looking at what may have been Lightwave's current engine. Since I don't know much about the politics of the split of the Peebler elves from Newtek I can't say what should have or could have been the result of the current Lightwave and its render engine had the Peebler Elves stayed at Newtek.

The last round of Beta testing was the most I've seen issues addressed between the user base and the company.

If Newtek keep this approach they could advance features and capabilies for Lightwave rather fast. Because of this, and now seeing what 201's render engine can do, I believe Newtek can see what the next bar is and try to surpass it.

One things I am hoping for is that F-Prime wil be updated to work with the new nodal surface/displacement features in 9. If this happens then you will have a pretty fast workflow.

I know that F-Prime made the 7.5-8.5 cycle changes less impactive on my workflow due to the fact that I could always build my scene up in F-Prime.

The real surprise for Lw9 series would be if Worley really does make an f-prime with full Lw9 compatibility. That would change the dynamic of 9 alot. Many of the render time intensive features in the new node shader approach (anistropy, SSS, aberation, etc) would be very useful utilizing F-prime's fast previewer.

This summer we are happily switching to Lw9 from 8.3 at EdenFX as the primary workstation APP since 9 has turned out to be a very solid build. We've stacked up to 12 million polys in a scene without much trouble and this was the 32bit version. Don't get me started on teh 64bit version. You can really load that thing up with polygons the likes I never would have even thought of with 8 or earlier builds.

So, I guess I am just parroting much of what Redbull said, which is Lw9 :thumbsup: great, but you can still see plenty of room for improvement over the 9 cycle given all the stuff we are seeing in the marketplace.

I am optimistic. :hey:

Snosrap
05-26-2006, 11:46 PM
And considering NT's Parrallel changeover methodology was likely the wrong one... In 2+ years Lux have put more thought into Modo, than 5 years of NT have put into LW.....


Wrong! On both accounts!

NT's Parallel changeover methodology was exactly the right move. Let's put this perspective guy's, if the "Peebler Elves" stay at NewTek, we just now get an app that renders after 5 years. Yes, it's been that long. And what would we be using in the interim, LW 7.5. Indeed modo was going to be the next gen LW, and I'm sure NewTek paid for part of it. I’m kind of glad it worked out the way it has. I have and use both Photoshop and Corel PhotoPaint, and use the strengths of each one. So there’s no reason not to have two 3D apps and use the strengths of each depending on the job at hand. The advantage LW has now is that a lot of its user base has had the opportunity to download and evaluate an application that has LW roots, and the feedback they are getting from that user base will allow them to mold the application to their users’ desires. Luxology gave us what they thought we might want, yes they did a pretty good job, but I feel NewTek with their open beta programs will be able to really mold LW into what WE want. A lot of the stuff we are asking for is a direct result of seeing how modo handles certain tasks. So in a way modo will make LW better. I often wished that I could take what is great about PhotoShop mix it in with PhotoPaint, and get one mean painting app. This is that kind of opportunity. Let’s let NT know what we like and don’t like about modo and see what they can cook up for LW. Lightwave 9 is definitely going in the right direction and is turning out to be a one fantastic upgrade. Good times are ahead.

Cheers
Snos

Panikos
05-27-2006, 12:19 AM
Ah, leave it to Redbull to put give an accurate perspective on the situation.

:D

RedBull
05-27-2006, 01:54 AM
Ah, leave it to Redbull to put give an accurate perspective on the situation. :thumbsup:

So, I guess I am just parroting much of what Redbull said, which is Lw9 :thumbsup: great, but you can still see plenty of room for improvement over the 9 cycle given all the stuff we are seeing in the marketplace.

I am optimistic. :hey:

Heheh, Thanks Intuition and yeah i agree with everything you say!
Also your thoughts and celshaders on the LW9 Beta cycle and the improvements, sound positive and good... I hope to see them come true in the future... I must say the general feeling from the Beta seems positive.

I hope Fprime 2.5 will be a nice release... I think Zdepth, and HV in preview
(stabley) will be there, and hopefully many of the LW9 enhancements.

Snorsrap: I do agree that Parrallel changeover was likely the correct move
for NT to make considering Modo and other market forces, i don't think it's the ideal approach to development methodology in general though....
In this case they did not have much of a choice.

cresshead
05-27-2006, 03:06 AM
correct me if i'm wrong but modo201 only has the capability to rotate an object over time..you can't even create a walkthru and has no actual timeline/keyframe capabilities of note so it's about one step up from bryce 2 where you could make stills but no animation....which in some regard is similar to hexagon2 with it's ambient occlusion shader...oh n yeah hexagon HAS some rather nifty tools modo can only dream of [and some bugs..to be fair] yet that was only $32....not $895

i'm stating that whilst modo has some advanced tools it's also missing a stck of tools for modeling as it only offers poly modeling as i uderstand it...and only offers rendering to a still image or a record deck animation of your model...be that a head/character or car spinning endlesly in circles...
i'll have a look at modo301 when it has a timeline...as it is it's usless for any tasks i have.

cresshead
05-27-2006, 03:13 AM
as for the maya 3ds max 'downtime'...i yet to see any of that....i'm on subscrition for 3dsmax and all the recent releases have been huge steps...no one at autodesk is just sitting there waiting for someone to comup with the next 'mayamax' max8.3 has had some huge advances..and i'd wager max 9 will be a stunnner too....

there is no downtime at autodesk...maya and max continue to develop and their NEXT app will be developed AT THE SAME TIME...autodesk are a HUGE company...plenty of resources to develop stuff like toxic/combustion whilst servicing and upgrading flame and inferno for example.

Captain Obvious
05-27-2006, 09:21 AM
correct me if i'm wrong
You're wrong.

201 can do walkthroughs and a few other kinds of basic animation. There are scripts for it at Vertexmonkey.





oh n yeah hexagon HAS some rather nifty tools modo can only dream of
Such as? I tried Hexagon 1.5, and was really unimpressed by it. What tools does it have that modo doesn't, but is still applicable? Since modo and Hexagon have different basic principles of modeling, not all tools are applicable to both apps.

Besides, modo 201 has quite a few tools that Hexagon 2 can only dream of. Like a renderer. ;)

Gregg "T.Rex"
05-27-2006, 09:49 AM
Modo 2.01 is good...
LW 9 is also good....

I use both and i've set them with the same shortcuts and simillar layout; at least, as close as possible. One app is compliment the other in many many ways...

The end users are in for a good treatment from both...

Gregg

Captain Obvious
05-27-2006, 10:30 AM
Modo 2.01 is good...
LW 9 is also good....

I use both and i've set them with the same shortcuts and simillar layout; at least, as close as possible. One app is compliment the other in many many ways...

The end users are in for a good treatment from both...

Gregg
While I haven't used LW9, I'm still inclined to agree with that. Luxology and NewTek are, in a certain sense, in competition with eachother. That said, there is no reason for an end user not to use both, if it would help him or her produce better work faster. I didn't stop using Lightwave, or even Lightwave Modeler, when I started using modo 103. I probably won't stop using Lightwave now that 201 is out, either.

ColinCohen
05-27-2006, 10:48 AM
What tools does it have that modo doesn't, but is still applicable? Since modo and Hexagon have different basic principles of modeling, not all tools are applicable to both apps.

Besides, modo 201 has quite a few tools that Hexagon 2 can only dream of. Like a renderer. ;)

Hex2 has a bevy of spline tools, history, text tools, and displacement painting. And I'm sure other things as well. I just bought it yesterday and am quite impressed.

If modo does have any of the above, please correct me as well. :)

That being said, I have nothing against modo. The more tools, the better.

Captain Obvious
05-27-2006, 11:12 AM
201 has displacement painting and spline tools. No history and no text tools, though. But I wouldn't really consider either "tools modo can only dream of."

ColinCohen
05-27-2006, 11:24 AM
201 has displacement painting and spline tools. No history and no text tools, though. But I wouldn't really consider either "tools modo can only dream of."

My understanding is that modo only has bump painting. And one would need to compare the spline tools in depth.

To be fair, of course, modo has a number of tools that Hex doesn't.

Captain Obvious
05-27-2006, 12:10 PM
You can paint a texture to be used for micropoly displacement rendering, so it has real displacement painting. It just works differently. ;)

cresshead
05-27-2006, 12:16 PM
modo..no history?..really?...that's a shame i thought it had a history like that of maya/xsi/3dsmax and cinema4d

good to hear it has some scripts for walkthrus..modo has ticked some more boxes my side now..

regards the scripting and sdk the thing that makes MAYA, 3dsmax, lightwave and to some lesser extents xsi and cinema is scripting and the openess of the SDK to develop new tools from 3rd parties..that's why there's so many plugins around for 3dsmax for example and why studio's prefer maya in their pipline...they can make what they don't have out of the box

cresshead
05-27-2006, 12:18 PM
quote:
You can paint a texture to be used for micropoly displacement rendering, so it has real displacement painting. It just works differently
end quote:

do you see the displacement in the open gl viewport as you paint?

can you expand on how it does it differently?

Intuition
05-27-2006, 12:45 PM
Modo 2.01 is good...
LW 9 is also good....

I use both and i've set them with the same shortcuts and simillar layout; at least, as close as possible. One app is compliment the other in many many ways...

The end users are in for a good treatment from both...

Gregg

Dangit Gregg, we are trying to stir up a big shouting match...quit making this thread all happy and stuff.

;)

I think that the advantage of having Modo 201 is that the eventual use of it will be like a standard 3d app with animation. Using it now will only benefit you later when it will include more advanced animation capabilites.

Since many of us here will be using it we can report to Newtek which features we like or don't like for future development of Lightwave as well.

:D

Gregg "T.Rex"
05-27-2006, 01:14 PM
Dangit Gregg, we are trying to stir up a big shouting match...quit making this thread all happy and stuff.

:D What can i say... :D
I'm happy with my toolset... :thumbsup:


I think that the advantage of having Modo 201 is that the eventual use of it will be like a standard 3d app with animation. Using it now will only benefit you later when it will include more advanced animation capabilities. Since many of us here will be using it we can report to Newtek which features we like or don't like for future development of Lightwave as well.

Now, to be honest Modo look very promising and seems that it has the potentional to make LW pass in history. That is, if Luxology was to release tomorrow a Modo version with animation, fur, hair, dynamics, fluids, volumetric, free distribute rendering and a FREE full featured SDK for the 3rd parties out there and studios...

But, that won't happen over night and while Lux will try to take over the (3d) world, Newtek won't sit idle, if they want to stay in business by selling :lwicon: and not only :vticon:

In the end, it’s a win-win situation for us, the end users. LW is a solid app and people can make money out of it, for many years ahead; with or without NT or Lux around...

Cheers,

Chris S. (Fez)
05-27-2006, 01:32 PM
My main complaint with Lightwave 9 is that the clutter of modeling tools could easily be condensed. This is the main reason I rarely use Modeler. Something like this:

1) Extender should “smooth shift” the selection and switch back to the last used transformation tool (numeric controls should allow us to control the number of edges added).

Polygon: Smooth Shift
Edge: Extender
Points: Extender

For edges and points, non-open edges are ignored (allowing us to make quick selections without worrying about selecting interior points or edges)

2) Bridge (numeric controls should allow us to control the number of edges added)

Polygon: Bridge selected polygons
Edge: Bridge selected edges
Points: Create polygons from selected points

For edges and points non-open edges are ignored (allowing us to make quick selections without worrying about selecting interior points or edges)

3) Connect (numeric controls should allow us to control the number and location of edges added, similar to the bandsaw controls).

Polygon: Connect selected polygons
Edge: Connect selected edges
Points: Connect selected points

When selecting two open edges:
Edge: Bridge selected edges and then allow us numeric controls
Points: Create Polygons from selected points and then allow us numeric controls

When a single edge is selected we should simply be able to split the edge (with numeric entry)


4) Spin

Polygon: Spin selected polygons
Edge: Spin selected edges
Points: ?

5) Bevel (numeric controls should allow us to control the number of edges added)

Polygon: Bevel selected polygons
Edge: Bevel selected edges
Points: Bevel selected points

6) Delete

Polygon: Delete selected polygons
Edge: Delete polygons composed by selected edges
Points: Delete polygons composed by selected points

7) Delete/Preserve Polygons

Polygon: Delete components of selected polygons without deleting polygons (the polygons and their points should be deleted, but not those points which are shared by adjoining but unselected polygons)

Edge: Delete selected edges without deleting polygons (the edges and their points should be deleted, but not those points which are shared by adjoining but unselected edges).

Points: Delete selected points without deleting polygons

8) Merge (numeric controls should allow us to control whether polygons are merged at the average of all selected or at the last selected component)

Polygon: Merge selected polygons (thank you Dodgy)
Edge: Merge points of selected edges
Points: Merge points

9) Split

Polygon:Cut and paste polygons in one command, keeping selection
Edge: Split surface along selected edges
Point: Unweld selected points

10) Flatten (numeric controls allow us to control whether elements are flattened in X, Y, or Z. It should also allow have a "Viewport" toggle, ie. command activated in front/back view flattens elements along Z axis, left/right view=X axis, Top/bottom view=Y axis, perspective view= flattens elements to the perspective camera view

Polygon: Flatten selected Polygons
Points: Flatten selected Points
Edges: Flatten selected Edges

So that's a start. There are a ton of tools already available in modeler which simply need to be organized and a whole lot that could be added. Unwelding, Aligning, Unifying, Flattening, Insetting, Dividing Edges, Advanced Loop and Ring selections, etc. etc...

We also need to consolidate the Drag tools:

Point Normal Move, Drag Tool, DragNet, Magnet could be organized so that we don’t waste so much time “browsing” for the right tool.

Add a “Drag Mode” hotkey which can be activated no matter what element mode we are in and no matter what tool we are using. Pressing the hotkey when using the move tool in point mode will activate a “Point Drag” tool. Pressing the hotkey when using the move tool in polygon mode will activate a “Polygon Drag” tool. Pressing the same hotkey when using the scale tool in polygon mode will activate a “Polygon Scale” tool. Etc. Etc. Right clicking and dragging with this hotkey pressed controls the falloff for soft selection/dragnet. When we release this hot key, it will snap back to the normal mode of whatever transform tool we are using.

Add an “All Elements” switch to the bottom of the numeric options of ALL transform tools so that the tool will drag points, polygons and edges, no matter what element mode we are in. The switch will be remembered and carried over from tool to tool so that if we activate “All Element” in the move tool, we don’t have to re-activate it in the scale tool.

In addition to the “Drag Mode” hotkey, add a “Normal Mode” hotkey which when pressed will scale and move elements along their normals. Same idea. Pressing the “Normal Mode” hotkey when using the move tool in polygon mode will activate a “Polygon Normal Move” tool. Pressing the “Normal Mode” hotkey when using the move tool in point mode will activate a “Point Normal Move” tool. Etc etc. Of course, make sure that “All Element” option at the bottom of the numeric boxes affects this tool too…

Panikos
05-27-2006, 02:58 PM
There are some things I cannot understand.
For example, what is more useful a native LW OpenEXR plugin or a Null plugin ?
OpenEXR code is there ready, however Newtek again has problems evaluating what is important for userbase.
:thumbsdow

Chris S. (Fez)
05-27-2006, 05:51 PM
You can paint a texture to be used for micropoly displacement rendering, so it has real displacement painting. It just works differently. ;)

I am thrilled with 201, but that does not count as displacement painting...but I think you already know that:thumbsup: .

Intuition
05-27-2006, 06:01 PM
Nice ideas Fez!

I used to wonder why the tools wouldn't have the buttons switch to thier correspondig function depending on if your in polygon or point mode. Now with edge specific tools it is adding clutter. I like the idea you just posted alot. I mean...alot alot.

Please post in feature request in beta forums. :D

That is seriously a good idea. I can not stress enough.

This is what I mean by saying that having other apps out there help make LW better.

mouse_art
05-27-2006, 06:03 PM
I am thrilled with 201, but that does not count as displacement painting...but I think you already know that:thumbsup: .


but at least you can watch them directly in iview(altough not as fast as fprime still, but sure not slow). ;)

Mike_RB
05-28-2006, 01:55 AM
and you could get :-

1.xsi 5.0 foundation AND z brush 2 for the price of modo201
2.silo,hexagon2 and messiah workstation [rigging/animation/rendering]for less then half the price of modo201

modo is overpriced...should be $199-$299 not $895

Of all the things to like or dislike about modo, this seems like the lamest argument. My chair at work costs more than modo.

radams
05-28-2006, 02:05 AM
but at least you can watch them directly in iview(altough not as fast as fprime still, but sure not slow). ;)

Hallo mouse_art,

So you've been working with both LW (Fprime) and with Modo 201.

Are you also Beta Testing LW9?

What part of Switzerland are you located? I used to work out of Dubenorf area.

Did you get your LW from VCS?

Cheers,

Captain Obvious
05-28-2006, 02:36 AM
quote:
You can paint a texture to be used for micropoly displacement rendering, so it has real displacement painting. It just works differently
end quote:

do you see the displacement in the open gl viewport as you paint?

can you expand on how it does it differently?
You see it as a bump map in the viewport, but modo has an interactive renderer (kind of like Fprime) to preview the micrpoly displacement.

Emmanuel
05-28-2006, 04:57 AM
I dont share the Modo hype here, because yet it has to become a full package.
Silo, zbrush and Hexagon won't fall into stasis, and for what modo is now, there is fierce competition.
Once animation features are incorpoarted, we'll see, then it might beome the best 3D app since LightWave :) and I won't have to consider XSI or Maya.
The renderer so far looks awesome, but I dunno about Luxs plans to open Modo for third parties like Brazil, maxwell, VRay, Final render etc.
I don't care for the modelling tools, LW will gets instances and so far I am happy with Modeler.
What's bugging me is the lack of simple things like render region.
And despite the fact I am not a node-shading fan, the lack of it might be a future problem for modo.
But I won't really give the tool a chance before its a complete package, because for modelling and painting, its not advanced but standard (vs zBrush or mudbox), its a bit more expensive than the equally great BodyPaint 2.5 and I dont need to spend the money yet.

Panikos
05-28-2006, 06:39 AM
Building something from scratch has some serious benefits.

- Exprerience and mistakes taught you a lot that you dont duplicate
- Studying the existing other apps and observe their good / bad things

Unavoidably, building something from scratch is not easy since everything needs to be written down and planned long term.

Its obvious that I am using Modo, (LW, messiah, FPrime too)
I am trying to be constructive, sometimes using sharp means. I am not responsible though for decisions taken.

As far as Modo surfacing, it IS nodal in a vertical fashion without lines maybe with some limitations, but for a beginning its very succesful.

Panikos
05-28-2006, 10:16 AM
I have a last years Siggraph video showing a Modo global node system, most probably is in the works :)

Lewis
05-28-2006, 10:22 AM
I have a last years Siggraph video showing a Modo global node system, most probably is in the works :)

I also have video where Brad says LightWave now (past tense) have "two mothers" NT and Lux :) ;). It doesn't mean it's true 'coz it's on video ;):

Earl
05-28-2006, 10:33 AM
As far as Modo surfacing, it IS nodal in a vertical fashion without lines maybe with some limitations, but for a beginning its very succesful.
From everything I've read, including the product description on Lux's website, the surfacing in modo 201 is layer-style similar to Photoshop. That seems pretty linear - the complete opposite of a nodal surfacing approach. Please correct me if I'm reading their product specs wrong...

I have to admit, I was never too hyped about node-based surfacing until I beta tested LightWave 9. That really made me a believer in the nodal methodology. It can be a bit daunting at first, but after some basic setups I was able to do things that could never be done with a layer-based system.

Lightwolf
05-28-2006, 10:56 AM
From everything I've read, including the product description on Lux's website, the surfacing in modo 201 is layer-style similar to Photoshop. That seems pretty linear - the complete opposite of a nodal surfacing approach.

Well, it allows for layered groups and instances... which goes way beyond PS.
And since any layered system can be visualized as nodes (hard to do the other way around) I guess it would be possible there as well. I'd even guess that the underlying data structures are very "nodal" in nature anyhow.

Cheers,
Mike

Celshader
05-28-2006, 12:16 PM
Building something from scratch has some serious benefits.

- Exprerience and mistakes taught you a lot that you dont duplicate

I think modo duplicates one critical mistake. A few years ago an ex-Dreamworks guy told me an interesting story. In 1997 or 1998 he asked a Dreamworks programmer why Dreamworks would not consider LightWave for its feature film pipeline, since LightWave 5.6 was a good 3D package.

The programmer agreed that LightWave was a good 3D package, but he pegged the limited LightWave SDK as the reason LightWave was not welcome in Dreamworks' feature film pipeline. Maya's SDK was completely open, so Dreamworks could code anything Maya was missing. LightWave's SDK, however, was not completely open, so the programmer felt restricted by what he could do with the LightWave SDK.

-+-

modo still doesn't have an open SDK, so Lux seems to be repeating a critical mistake in its software development.

-+-

Fortunately, the LightWave SDK has gotten more and more open since 8.0. With later versions of 8.x, FPrime no longer needs clunky displacement and surface plug-ins to access displacement and surface information. Since 8.3 it's also been possible to craft custom subD-types (http://www.spinquad.com/forums/showpost.php?p=110956&postcount=20) in Modeler. Plus, the LightWave 9.0 SDK allows programmers to create custom camera types and to access the powerful Node Editor.

NewTek seems determined to correct a critical mistake of the past, even if modo repeats it.

Panikos
05-28-2006, 12:35 PM
So, you made your conclusions cause you havent received your personal copy of SDK

Celshader
05-28-2006, 12:37 PM
So, you made your conclusions cause you havent received your personal copy of SDK

I'm using the LightWave SDK and the RealFlow SDK at work right now. Where is the modo SDK?

Lightwolf
05-28-2006, 12:59 PM
I have to admit the omission of an SDK bugs me as well...

However, as a modelling/paint/rendering product I don't see it as being critical, especially since an SDK has been announced for later incarnations.

In the meantime there is the choice of using to scripting languages for more basic tasks, and even though I'm not to fond of how those were integrated (look at Fu5 to see how to properly inegrate scripting into an app) it seems powerful enough.

And looking at other apps, LW still has ways to go in the SDK... and the internal data structures that make the SDK clumsy to use at times.

Cheers,
Mike

SplineGod
05-28-2006, 08:36 PM
Of all the things to like or dislike about modo, this seems like the lamest argument. My chair at work costs more than modo.

I have to respectfully disagree here Mike. I didnt see Cress say he disliked Modo. I think he was trying to point out what he perceives as a lack of apparent value when it comes to what you get vs what youre paying. A lot of people use these products as freelancers or at small studios. $900 buck IS a lot of money to some. The problem is that you CAN get far more power and functionality in the products Cress mentioned for MUCH less money. Price will always play a major factor. EVERY 3D app out there has gone thru price changes or offered it at a special price at some time. I guess this would mean that is also an important factor to the manufacturers as well. How many people have bought LW because of the 'bang vs buck'?
In the end we all want more bang for less buck. Nothing wrong with that. :)

faulknermano
05-28-2006, 08:40 PM
My chair at work costs more than modo.

are you boasting? :D

(i like my chairs small and light and uncomfortable so i dont sit on them the whole day)

cresshead
05-28-2006, 08:57 PM
i'd like a roadmap to just how long it'll be before it's a full featured 3d app and just what final price you'll pay for that final app...regarding modo...currently it's $895 with no animation/bones/particles/full lightsysem/volumetrics aslo for many of the modo adopters are apparently maya users wanting a better set of modeling tools..yet now they only have the option to pay for the latest version with extra stuff like lighting/rendering/painting/ which they maynot use ever...modo doesn't seem to follow the modular app in which you can buy the bit you want like that of cinema4d ro offer just the modeling tools for those who only need extra tools like many users...they seem to be slowly building a full featured app one brick at a time..to rival maya/3dsmax rather than have some modules that may fit into existing workflows of other 3d apps such as maya...a shift in focus to one of getting peope to move from lightwave/max/maya/xsi wholesale over to modo [once it's finished] rather than the silo/hexagon/zbrush approah of ADDING extra apps as tool extensions

[poor punctuation above!.sorry!]

as for my optionon on modo..my limited time with it was not productive but i've seen some wonderful models ade with it so it's defiatly a capable app..but so is maya and that has a huge sway of tools RIGHT NOW and is a full on app with great support and deep mel scripting tools and 5 renderers built in plus renderman on the cheap if you want it!...

mdod in a switchback way seems to be more similar to messiah in that modo offers modeling and rendering where as messiah offers rigging/animating and rendering....

both offer their own flavour of a renderer and both have limited/non sdk tools and both are good but incomplete apps...messiah workstation scores well though in the pricing and node based surfacing....just add silo and hexagon2 to make it a full toolset.

Panikos
05-28-2006, 11:47 PM
If I had animation abilities of messiah in Modo and Worley's tools, I would have been in paradise :)

All these people were former Newtek developers and they achieve greater things outside Newtek.

As far as price vs features, I still believe that LW8.0 was a steal. I paid of bug fixes that I couldnt stand and didnt have the option to stay with LW7.* until LW9.0.
At least LW9.0 has something to justify its price.

RedBull
05-29-2006, 01:18 AM
[poor punctuation above!.sorry!]
as for my optionon on modo..my limited time with it was not productive but i've seen some wonderful models ade with it so it's defiatly a capable app..but so is maya and that has a huge sway of tools RIGHT NOW and is a full on app with great support and deep mel scripting tools and 5 renderers built in plus renderman on the cheap if you want it!...

mdod in a switchback way seems to be more similar to messiah in that modo offers modeling and rendering where as messiah offers rigging/animating and rendering....

both offer their own flavour of a renderer and both have limited/non sdk tools and both are good but incomplete apps...messiah workstation scores well though in the pricing and node based surfacing....just add silo and hexagon2 to make it a full toolset.

The argument that Maya is a great application, yet Modo is $895 and not complete.... Maya Unlimited still misses some LW Model tools, and it's $7000.00
Maya and Max are also now owned by Autodesk which is worrying in itself.
So it's future is unsure.

Modo's 201 strength is it's new core, modeling and painting abilities.
the renderer is nice, but not fully there yet...

As for pipeline integration, .lws and .lwo support, .ma support.....
I mean Modo's base object format is .lwo, it's even extended some extensions for Modo's .lwo support that LW itself doesn't have. (edge waiting, bg selection, etc) So it fit's the LW pipeline especially well....

I mean Fprime is a $499 plugin for LW, Modo is a $895 3D Paint and Model tool with interactive renderer plugin for LW... (to me)
I seriously can't believe anyone could take Hexagon2 seriously, it's simply the biggest waste of $1.99 iv'e ever spent.... :)

As for SDK, Modo201 does accept .lx and .dll files for plugins, so the SDK does exist internally already. What i hope is that they've learnt what let LW down in the SDK department, often i feel like Lscript and LW plugins, are pretty much pushing the boundries of what they can do for far too long.

Anyway back to LW9/Modo201

cresshead
05-29-2006, 03:56 AM
i think we can go round n round in circles comparing spec sheets of maya vs modo vs xsi vs 3dsmax and really get nowhere in the end:agree:

my perception of modo at the moment is we have no idea where it's going in the next few months or years which is much more worrying than say autodesk buying alias [maya, motion builder, studiotools, sketch etc]..

autodesk i believe is on the mission to make the 'phototshop of 3d'...
and they have enough grunt to to that with the market share they now have in films/tv and games and the talent onboard from alias as well as their own discreet team who made 3dsmax.

modo is trying to find it's feet in an already crowded marketplace...last year it was the niche market polygon modeler to add to a maya/xsi workflow now it's somewhat of a chamleon and now sells it's seflt as a poly modeler and uv painter with some extra titbit of a renderer.
we have no idea about the sdk or plugins and no idea wether 3rd party lins will ever get intrigated into modo with the likes of industry standard renderers such as renderman, brazil, final render or vray...

i'm not sure who's buying modo and what the customer expects of it...:stumped:

modo not in the same area of silo3d or hexagon now...

if i were still teaching students 3d at college and one of them asked if they should go get modo as their 3d app...i would have a hard time justifying such a move to them based on what it can do and the price...
it's too little and too much [features/price]

James Edwards
05-29-2006, 05:53 AM
Uh, it fits better into pipelines now than it ever did. Now that I can model, UV, morph, paint and bake all in one app most of my 3d work is handled by a single app, which pipes easily into XSI via point oven. This is the best app to app flow that I've ever had. Modo is more of a complete 2d/3d surfacing solution than any other software on the market at this point. NOTE: SURFACING: meaning modeling, and texturing - NOT animation. Nothing else on the market can actually do everything it does inside of one application. That is a unique situation to be in, even if it is only for a short time as the market catches up.

For someone who doesn't even own the app and has no interest in it outside of trying to find ways to break it down, you seem to worry a lot more about its future than people who own and use it. There really is no need for an SDK at this point because it doesn't do animation. It's perfectly understandable that they are waiting till the core of what it is now and what it will become is more solid before releasing an SDK because we'll all be better off that way. Complaining about a lack of something that will eventually be there seems like you are grasping for something to bolster your weak argument.

As far as animation goes, yes it's common knowledge Lux are working towards that. But currently modo is only a modeling solution so why bother with unreasonable expectations for something it isn't even marketed as being capable of doing. Lux isn't selling modo with the promise of things to come. They are selling a solid focused product that does exactly what it claims to do and does it pretty **** well. You might as well complain about Silo or Hexagon or Zbrush for lacking animation tools as well.

$895 is a drop in the bucket for any professional who values good tools over cheap hand-me-down solutions (many hobbyist tools). For someone who claims to own and use max as a professional I'm surprised you complain about Modo's price. Even with animation I doubt Modo would be that expensive. I've been using max since before it was called max as well and I've thought it was always bloated and over priced.

Modo has found it's feet just fine I think. It has captured a piece of the market from nothing at all. That's harder to do than it is to retain customers for applications that have dominated the market for years. I've used almost every modeling tool on the market including some that aren't on it yet, and I feel confident in saying that this tool is here to stay. I use it more than any other tool in my set next to ZBrush and now Mudbox.

Celshader
05-29-2006, 09:47 AM
For someone who doesn't even own the app and has no interest in it outside of trying to find ways to break it down, you seem to worry a lot more about its future than people who own and use it.

I went through all this before with project:messiah. In 1999 enthusiastic friends showed me how awesome messiah was and talked me into eventually buying two licenses of messiah for $1000. A few studios even worked messiah into their pipelines -- DNA, Computer Cafe, Digital Domain, and others. Messiah offered many wonderful tools that LightWave 5.6 did not have, like independent motion graphs.

Then LightWave [6] came out with some of messiah's features, like independent motion graphs. Maya dropped its entry-level price to $2000, and folks found ways to either make do with LW6.5 or set up a LightWave<>Maya pipeline.

Flash-forward to 2006. I know of only one guy in Los Angeles who still uses messiah for anything, and I don't even know if he uses it outside of his personal/freelance work.

-+-

Right now a few studios are using modo for a few things, just like a few studios used to use messiah for a few things. I learned my $1000 lesson from the last time I bought lowercase-"m" software from ex-NewTek programmers, though. I'm going to wait and see if modo sticks around, or see if history repeats itself, with modo going the way of messiah in this town.

With no SDK or 64-bit version, though, modo's long-term chances seem slim.

Emmanuel
05-29-2006, 09:47 AM
Fortunately, the LightWave SDK has gotten more and more open since 8.0. With later versions of 8.x, FPrime no longer needs clunky displacement and surface plug-ins to access displacement and surface information. Since 8.3 it's also been possible to craft custom subD-types (http://www.spinquad.com/forums/showpost.php?p=110956&postcount=20) in Modeler. Plus, the LightWave 9.0 SDK allows programmers to create custom camera types and to access the powerful Node Editor.

NewTek seems determined to correct a critical mistake of the past, even if modo repeats it.

Yeah, but frankly, has anyone actually CODED new SDS-types for modeler during the LW-8-cycle ?
Nobody really seems to care !
Did anybody ever use the HUB, as it was stated by NT the HUB could be used by third parties to hook their tools into LW ?
NOBODY EVER !

Emmanuel
05-29-2006, 09:56 AM
I went through all this before with project:messiah. In 1999 enthusiastic friends showed me how awesome messiah was and talked me into eventually buying two licenses of messiah for $1000. A few studios even worked messiah into their pipelines -- DNA, Computer Cafe, Digital Domain, and others. Messiah offered many wonderful tools that LightWave 5.6 did not have, like independent motion graphs.

Then LightWave [6] came out with some of messiah's features, like independent motion graphs. Maya dropped its entry-level price to $2000, and folks found ways to either make do with LW6.5 or set up a LightWave<>Maya pipeline.

Flash-forward to 2006. I know of only one guy in Los Angeles who still uses messiah for anything, and I don't even know if he uses it outside of his personal/freelance work.

-+-

Right now a few studios are using modo for a few things, just like a few studios used to use messiah for a few things. I learned my $1000 lesson from the last time I bought lowercase-"m" software from ex-NewTek programmers, though. I'm going to wait and see if modo sticks around, or see if history repeats itself, with modo going the way of messiah in this town.

With no SDK or 64-bit version, though, modo's long-term chances seem slim.


I don't care too much about testimonials either, be it from id software or Digital Domain.These studios alway get the next new tool, and the artists don't have to pay it, so when I read about ZBrush NOT beeing used by WETA for LOTR2 and 3, and MUDBOX beeing the next big hype, I thought the statements about modo don't interest me at all.
Heck, they used SoftImage for Jurassic Park 1-3, even when XSI, Maya where already available, I rather stick with a long and proven sift than to try and follow every new hype.
I just raise my eyebrow when I see people claim that modo will leave LW dead in the dust, that Silo is the future, that Hexagon will rock everybody etc etc etc, history repeating.To each his own, I am not gonna shell out 900 bucks yet for modo just because everybody makes me feel like a bum when I stay with LW :)
Messiah is an awesome example.It was really hyped, and it has an uninteresting renderer and nice animation tools, so what ? Why no modeling in messiah ?
And there is always Blender, Ya know...

Panikos
05-29-2006, 11:17 AM
I am very happy cause I am not the guardant of anybody and I am very happy too with the tools I am using :dance:

Time is the most fair judge

ColinCohen
05-29-2006, 11:37 AM
Did anybody ever use the HUB, as it was stated by NT the HUB could be used by third parties to hook their tools into LW ?
NOBODY EVER !

As far as I know, the Hub API was never actually released -- at least not publicly. Many of us may have used it if it were. :)

I tend to agree with Mike in regards to the modo SDK. It's not essential as of now -- In fact, I'm not aware of any standalone modelers that have an SDK. I believe they have stated that their SDK will be released sometime after 201. But then again, someone from Lux told me at siggraph 2004 that it would be released shortly.

Time will answer all questions.

Captain Obvious
05-29-2006, 11:38 AM
modo still doesn't have an open SDK, so Lux seems to be repeating a critical mistake in its software development.
I think (or hope, perhaps) that the reason modo doesn't have an SDK yet is because Luxology are determined to make a good SDK from the start, so they won't have to patch it later. Here's hoping.

Panikos
05-29-2006, 11:49 AM
For those who remember, first LW plugins were developed after LW 4.0 (four.zero). Some of them were MikeReed Wavefilter, Worley's Gaffer, some Ernies stuff etc

The lack of modo SDK now, is a ridiculous blame.

Gregg "T.Rex"
05-29-2006, 12:50 PM
AFAIK, Modo's SDK is the Nexus environment application, which Brad have stated that anyone with code experience could use Nexus and build a whole full blown standalone 3D application; not just an SDK for expanding Modo app.

If this is the case, then i doubt we'll ever see Nexus free for public use. Maybe, a cut down streamlined version, specailly developed for Modo use only.

But, that's just a wild thought of mine....

Gregg

Lightwolf
05-29-2006, 12:54 PM
AFAIK, Modo's SDK is the Nexus environment application, which Brad have stated that anyone with code experience could use Nexus and build a whole full blown standalone 3D application; not just an SDK for expanding Modo app.
Afaik the public SDK will sit on top of it, and be C++ based. Unlinke Nexus which is C based.

Cheers,
Mike

RedBull
05-29-2006, 03:05 PM
For those who remember, first LW plugins were developed after LW 4.0 (four.zero). Some of them were MikeReed Wavefilter, Worley's Gaffer, some Ernies stuff etc

The lack of modo SDK now, is a ridiculous blame.

That's not quite correct... XSI has had a SDK since it's inception.
And when you see how lacking Modo201 is in many areas already...
For example LW has dozens of procedurals, plus Darktree, + IFW2..
Studio's saw a need with Maya's invention, to start from the begginning
with a extendible, open architecture.... Something LW is not....
So it's important for Modo to do the same thing.....

If you have a look at say Evasion3D.
We have spectrum, meshpaint, XDOFII, shadow designer2...
All of those plugins except say Meshpaint, would be useful to me in 201.

Dozens of Pyhton scripts that Modo201 has now, should be C++ plugins.
3rd parties should already be making up the gaps that Lux have missed..
And i have to say that after 24 hours of good use with 201, it does have plenty of gaps.... I'd like third parties to fill them, because honestly i don't have the faith in Luxology to cover all basis....

I think 201 is really a little immature as a renderer... No caustics, No shadowmaps, a basic layer system, hardly any procedurals....
They've delivered a little short of what i expected, but still it shows potential.
But for me, how Luxology handle their third parties is OOooooh so important...
Because it's obvious NT really don't care much about them....

It's a shame stuff like the Public Hub API that was promised to developers for LW8, still has not been even mentioned in LW9..... (Bahaus uses it)
Because that's the complete arrogance and ignorance, i hope Luxology have learnt over NT.... So time will tell if they have...

Mike's infinimap are other plugins, i'm sure already have a market in Modo already.....

ColinCohen
05-29-2006, 03:14 PM
It's a shame stuff like the Public Hub API that was promised to developers for LW8, still has not been even mentioned in LW9..... (Bahaus uses it)

I don't believe Mirage uses the hub -- at least not in the current version. I downloaded it recently and could see no hub connection either in the program or described in the documentation. The only thing I found was a .lwo file viewer.

Panikos
05-29-2006, 04:19 PM
Redbull, I should have wrote that I was writing about the first plugins appeared for LW. They didnt use LWPanels :)

I still use one of them, Ernie Wright DOF-Toy

Lightwolf
05-29-2006, 05:01 PM
I don't believe Mirage uses the hub -- at least not in the current version.
I remember that Aura 2.5 (I think) used to. It was a bit touchy to set up though, but you could transfer UVs as a wire to Aura, paint (in Aura) and update the mesh/image in LW via the Hub...

Cheers,
Mike - yeah, I'd port infiniMap to Modo. I still understand the notion to work on the SDK in-house for as long as possible. Once you release it you immediately have legacy issues... so the underlying architecture needs to be rock solid.

Snosrap
05-29-2006, 10:26 PM
Just downloaded and installed m*d* 201. My first impression? LW is in good shape. Loaded some LW scenes to see what it could do and it's dog slow. Moving objects and cameras and lights are very slow and not very intuitive. FPrime is much faster than their "I-View". Rendering is OK, but not what they cracked it up to be. I think 9 will be on par or better. I loaded a scene with many textures and it took a long time to load and then the textures came in as a real long list of named text, rather confusing at this point and on large scenes may be a real challenge to keep track of. Naturally I just started with it, but my first thought is that I wasted some major coin, luckily for me I have some cash coming my way from a LW job. I'll play around with it some more, but in no way look for it to take over my LW workflow. LW is alive and well.

Cheers
Snos

Not sure what the normal etiquette is for quoting one's self, but I'm doing it anyway. After using modo over the long holiday weekend, I still stand behind these comments. I figured out the camera and light movement while in their respective views.But for all the hype about this app for workflow breakthroughs (I'm talking scene setup and rendering) in my opinion it falls short. I know the interface is flexible and can be changed to suite the users' needs, but as a new user I like to keep things at the default to learn the app. And I can tell you this thing is a cluster f***! It's just as bad as LW in some instances. And not as good as 9 in others. One typical example is building a scene with pre-made objects, its a two step process, load your object (modo treats it as new scene-you can have multiple scenes loaded at once)and then drag the object from the item list up and into the scene your working on. Getting to the light and camera settings are cumbersome. These and other workflow things are really screwy. The modeling is fine if not very good. The lights, camera, action - I'm sorry there is no action - are the weakest parts of modo. The rendering is superb. The potential is there. Oh, its extremely slow. LW is no speed demon when it comes to navigating in layout, but modo comes to a crawl with scenes that don't even make LW hiccup. Get used to seeing - modo (Not Responding). LW9 is looking really hot, although modo may very well trump Modeler in modeling. However I feel that Modeler is heading in the right direction, and will probably remain my main modeler for some time to come. I'll use modo when I need to move a poly along it's normal! Ha! Ha!

LW looking good guys. Great work NT!

Cheers
Snos

digefxgrp
05-30-2006, 12:09 AM
Snosrap-
Hmmmm.....Interesting that you claim that Modo is slow compared to LW. I’m finding just the total opposite. The first thing I did upon installing Modo 201 was to load in a good number of my “heavy” LW objects to see how responsive Modo was.
I always start to see some sluggishness in Modeler at about 300,000 polys (running in quad mode with perspective set to smooth shaded or texture shaded). Objects at over 1,000,000 polys will really start bogging down my rotating and translating movements. However I found in Modo using the same quad layout as Modeler, I was able to get up to about 820,000 polys before I started to see even some slight sluggishness. Models at 1,500,000+ polys were still really responsive. I tested this with a number of objects and the results were always the same.
So far I’ve been real impressed with Modo 201 and the more I learn about it the more I like it. The one advantage though that LW Modeler still has is the wealth of 3rd party tools available…LWCad2, Rope Editor, stuff like that.

James Edwards
05-30-2006, 12:28 AM
The modeling is fine if not very good.


although modo may very well trump Modeler in modeling

Well, which is it? Your post is just one big ramble with nothing to really back it up other than that you used 201 for a couple of days - which doesn't do much for your credibility to be honest. I guess that's more than enough time to become an expert though. :stumped:

What I don't understand is why you paid for it. I mean, you clearly don't like it, and yet you spend money anyway just so you can use it for a couple of days and then discard it. Wouldn't waiting for a demo make more sense? 30 days is more than enough time to come to grips with an application and decide if it is right for you. Or did you just buy it so you could complain about it over here? :screwy:

RedBull
05-30-2006, 02:51 AM
I don't believe Mirage uses the hub -- at least not in the current version. I downloaded it recently and could see no hub connection either in the program or described in the documentation. The only thing I found was a .lwo file viewer.

Yeah sorry i figured it was still an option for Mirage! Lightwolf is correct,
Aura2.5b i think the last NT sold version, definately does have a Hub connection. I bought in on special just for that reason. (In Aura/LW it was a .p file, right clicking on the hub... Gave options to for Aura, Modeler or Layout. And it worked fairly well too. LW8 upgrade page promised an "Open Public Hub API" So i figured they were finally letting others use the HUB ability. It did work very much like your AutoView idea.

I just would of loved to of seen more usage of it. :)
LW9 contains a HUB Interface Color Changer, something that can't be done from the current SDK.

I will say i don't use the HUB since 7.x, as over the 8.x cycle it's developed a 6second delay when hitting Alt-Tab from Modeler to Layout... 7.x does not.

For a while there i think Aura integration to LW, would of been the next
logical move.... 2D/3D Paint was always about to go big, Zbrush, Bodypaint, Mudbox, Silo2, etc...

A little birdy tells me, that indeed a Beta of a 3D "Light Paint" based on Aura was indeed developed at around that time... Don't know what happend to it, but it definately existed internally. Looks like Modo was a better idea.

Panikos: Hehe No worries!

Snosrap: I think most people are trying to compare it to Lightwave, and that's not really a good thing.... While comparisons will be made. I think it's far from being as mature or capable as LW in almost every area.

I've spent another day with Modo201 today... And i still have mixed feelings.
What it does do well is Model, Paint, and provide an integrated multithreaded
previewer and bucket renderer into a Model and Paint application.
I would buy 201 over Deep Paint or Bodypaint, no question.

colkai
05-30-2006, 04:18 AM
Of all the things to like or dislike about modo, this seems like the lamest argument. My chair at work costs more than modo.
Jeez, that's a heck of a chair!
My chair at work costs less that Hex2. :p

t4d
05-30-2006, 05:21 AM
2 days in Modo work time About 2 hours render time . this is my very first 201 scene
http://www.thomas4d.com/modo_005.jpg
Really bad UV maps ( testing the unwrap and UV tools then tested how it would paint over them ) turned out well I think.

I like modo 201 well worth the Money

all up 103 had a smoother tighter feel then Lw 9 for me
eg- 1 bevel command working on points, edges and polygons, etc
201 added a whole new level of coolness
Speed problem is when you leave the Iview on as you model ( not a good idea )
turn it off and modo is very fast !! ( just like Fprime really If Fprime was in modeler )

Painting is great I have Zbrush and Modo this is better for colour and bump maps
due to the Much nicer workflow then Zbrush, But I Hope 201 gets displacement painting soon,...

Render is not prefect it's slow and its noise and to get rid of the noise
you have to brings all the control up and render times great big..
Just like Lw and Fprime really.

It's alittle slower then Fprime when setting surfaces ( just like XSI )
but cleaner and less noise so it's quicker to get finals

the whole modo render is a nice idea
real world lights sort of, direction lights that really are sunlight
with all the needed controls for that type of light.
( day light is so easy to get nice with GI and without )

Very nice to to get Great lighting once you learn it,
it's faster then LW Fprime in it's workflow for finding the Best lighting setup.

Displacement as slow Abit quicker then LW But XSI is by far the fastest at rendering displacements on my machines.

Afew negatives in 201
no little render preview balls ( Iview isn't that fast to not have them )
the shade tree is going to be a mess in big scenes
NO Animation This really just makes 201 a connect into other apps.
Painting is alittle crashy
all the tools are there but you just want to animate !! and all that stuff is missing
exsample - I normally just key the camera at different position when doing stills
NO Timeline in 201 So you have to create alots of cameras
Not a big problem But think about all those times you key things in your still images scenes ;)




if your a 3D pro Modo is a must buy, $$$ has nothing to do with it,
it's a nice peice of software that does it's job well.
OR if you love modeling and render ( not much of a animator ) it's great too
if your happy with what your using, That's great Keep using it =)

LW with Fprime ( and maybe G2 ) will do just a good a job of Modo 201 with only afew minor workflow bumps/workarounds here and there.

Gregg "T.Rex"
05-30-2006, 05:47 AM
Well said....

Gregg

Snosrap
05-30-2006, 07:14 AM
Snosrap-
Hmmmm.....Interesting that you claim that Modo is slow compared to LW. I’m finding just the total opposite. The first thing I did upon installing Modo 201 was to load in a good number of my “heavy” LW objects to see how responsive Modo was.
I always start to see some sluggishness in Modeler at about 300,000 polys (running in quad mode with perspective set to smooth shaded or texture shaded). Objects at over 1,000,000 polys will really start bogging down my rotating and translating movements. However I found in Modo using the same quad layout as Modeler, I was able to get up to about 820,000 polys before I started to see even some slight sluggishness. Models at 1,500,000+ polys were still really responsive. I tested this with a number of objects and the results were always the same.
So far I’ve been real impressed with Modo 201 and the more I learn about it the more I like it. The one advantage though that LW Modeler still has is the wealth of 3rd party tools available…LWCad2, Rope Editor, stuff like that.

Load a medium complex LW scene and you'll see what I mean. Very slow. Modeling is very speedy, but when you put it all together to create scenes with lights and cameras thats where things start to falter.

Snos

Snosrap
05-30-2006, 07:19 AM
Well, which is it?

Both comments are saying the same thing. modo is a good modeler.

Snos

Snosrap
05-30-2006, 07:40 AM
What I don't understand is why you paid for it. I mean, you clearly don't like it, and yet you spend money anyway just so you can use it for a couple of days and then discard it. Wouldn't waiting for a demo make more sense? 30 days is more than enough time to come to grips with an application and decide if it is right for you. Or did you just buy it so you could complain about it over here? :screwy:

I never said I disliked it. Nor did I say I was never going to use it again. My point is, that just like LW, it has issues with workflow and speed. Why would I spend money on it? I downloaded the 103 demo and renewed my demo license 4 times. I was sold on the modeling portion of the app and was excited about the rendering possibilities. (Still am) Also I was contacted by a Lux sales rep and, after several back and forth e-mails, was offered an additional discount over and above the $200 discount offer at the time. Basically I got a good deal. So it was worth the gamble to save some money, and I just finished up a LW job that easily paid for it, so why not. I'm sure as I become more accustom to it's idiosyncrasies it will become a useful tool. But for now, when deadlines loom LW (for me) is the way to go.

Cheers
Snos

pixym
05-30-2006, 08:46 AM
Load a medium complex LW scene and you'll see what I mean. Very slow. Modeling is very speedy, but when you put it all together to create scenes with lights and cameras thats where things start to falter.

Snos

I second that!
Modo is pretty slugish when loading a medium LW scene. The scene comes with a lot of "locators" and it is difficult to select all of them and put them in a single group...
In addition the camera does not have its LW config, and when you hit 35mm for camera lens it becomes 3,5cm (that is not good IMHO)

Emmanuel
05-30-2006, 10:10 AM
Hi,

wait a minute: NO shadowmaps in modo ? Which means: no soft shadows for spotlights ? No render region, no shadowmaps, but its got motion blur , right ?
Although You can't really create motions in modo :screwy:

Sounds almost like NT-logic ;)))
Next thing will be: modo gets a particle system but no hypervoxels or particle shaders.

Although I like the multiple scenes at once idea....

But that shines a new light upon their render feature list, I thought they didn't mention the lights because its all standard stuff...but no shadowmaps, that's a bit strange for such a new app :thumbsdow

Captain Obvious
05-30-2006, 10:49 AM
Load a medium complex LW scene and you'll see what I mean. Very slow. Modeling is very speedy, but when you put it all together to create scenes with lights and cameras thats where things start to falter.

Snos
When I reach a few hundred thousand polygons in a scene in Lightwave, bounding box threshold is a MUST, or everything gets horribly slow. In modo, it's perfectly workable with polygon counts several times higher.




In addition the camera does not have its LW config, and when you hit 35mm for camera lens it becomes 3,5cm (that is not good IMHO)
35mm = 3.5cm




wait a minute: NO shadowmaps in modo ? Which means: no soft shadows for spotlights ? No render region, no shadowmaps, but its got motion blur , right ?
No shadow maps, but remember that you can't use shadow maps with Fprime or Kray either. ;)

And the motion blur is there for the turntable rendering.

Render region is not all that useful, I think. I use it all the time in LW, sure, but in modo, I just scroll wheel zoom in on the details in the iview.

Mike_RB
05-30-2006, 11:01 AM
NO shadowmaps in modo ?

Yet. There is a shadow type attribute, currently there is only one thing iavailable to set it as, "ray traced". I'm sure it won't be long until there are more options in that attribute.

ufo3d
05-30-2006, 11:43 AM
When I reach a few hundred thousand polygons in a scene in Lightwave, bounding box threshold is a MUST, or everything gets horribly slow. In modo, it's perfectly workable with polygon counts several times higher.


yes, this works fine when the viewport is "Perspective", but it is very slow after I switch to "camera".

and the preview is always very slow(even GI, shadow , SSS are all off), sometimes no respond, I have to resize the perview window to make it re-active, this works sometimes.

another problem is, when many textures are loaded to the scene, any action such as dragging, selecting item, seteting materials.,etc everything are seriusly slow nor no response.I have tried on and off VBO, but no difference.


rederning SSS is dog slow .....I already reduce the sample though...

I am abit disppointed but I understand it is not a completed product yet. so let's wait and see. time will tell

pixym
05-30-2006, 11:56 AM
...
35mm = 3.5cm...

I know that Captain...
But, as a owner of an old CANON T-90, less old EOS 600, and recent EOS 20D, and a great bunch of Canon lenses it is not "natural" for lens focal...
In LW this setting is displayed in mm!

Intuition
05-30-2006, 12:20 PM
Hi,

wait a minute: NO shadowmaps in modo ? Which means: no soft shadows for spotlights ? No render region, no shadowmaps, but its got motion blur , right ?
Although You can't really create motions in modo :screwy:



Actually, I am surprised that the spot lights aren't soft shadow enabled. Currently you can even get a directional light to make a soft shadow by raising the spread value. SO, I checked the spot and it is a hard shadow.

Although if you use an image mask on geometry you can make an area light or even a directional light have a spot light appearance while utilizing the soft shadow capabilities of the light. So, even though you don't have the soft shadow spot lights you can quickly, within seconds, make a directional or area light have the same look and get soft shadows with a little engineering ;) .

I'm waiting for Lux to get back to me so I can get a copy for home. Currently we are using one at work bought by John Teska.

Captain Obvious
05-30-2006, 12:49 PM
Actually, I am surprised that the spot lights aren't soft shadow enabled. Currently you can even get a directional light to make a soft shadow by raising the spread value. SO, I checked the spot and it is a hard shadow.
Soft-shadowed spot lights is one of the things I hope 202 or so will feature. I don't really care much for shadow maps, though. They don't work with iview, they use memory, they don't work well with transparency, etc etc etc. I agree with Allen Hastings: it's much better to have raytracing so fast that you won't need shadow maps.

phil lawson
05-30-2006, 02:48 PM
rederning SSS is dog slow .....I already reduce the sample though...


I'm not sure on how you set up your scene, but its very nippy here with HDRI and MC radiosity.

Almost on par with MR in most cases.

4400+

Cheers.

RedBull
05-30-2006, 03:24 PM
Hi,
wait a minute: NO shadowmaps in modo ? Which means: no soft shadows for spotlights ? No render region, no shadowmaps, but its got motion blur , right ?
Although You can't really create motions in modo :screwy:

Sounds almost like NT-logic ;)))
Next thing will be: modo gets a particle system but no hypervoxels or particle shaders.

Although I like the multiple scenes at once idea....

But that shines a new light upon their render feature list, I thought they didn't mention the lights because its all standard stuff...but no shadowmaps, that's a bit strange for such a new app :thumbsdow

LW doesn't have a render region tool, Fprime does not support shadowmaps,
Motion Blur is included because like LW Motion Blur is required for DOF.
In terms of polygon rendering and viewport speed it is quite quick, (nowhere near XSI's viewport speed)

I have seen people compare render engines......
I have to say that Modo 201's renderer is definately a disappointment so far.
It's quick at poly models, but as soon as you use micropolygon displacement,
the renderer does bog does rather badly, i mean i'm really unimpressed...
In terms of MPD speed, Mental Ray is light years faster.....
Even certain filters like division and multiply, when used with SSS, can be REALLY slow sometimes....

Have not yet worked it all out, but just GI and poly models it's good....
But yeah displacements, i have NO doubt that LW9 with APS could render billions of displaced polygons, far far far faster than Modo201 can....
And not just by a little, i mean my tests with MPD, last night blew out to 6hours with only 400,000 polys.... Similar thing in LW, would of taken seconds.

So i still have mixed feelings, again for paint/render it's cool.......
But after that MPD test last night, it looks unlikely to ever be my renderer of choice.......

Earl
05-30-2006, 03:33 PM
But yeah displacements, i have NO doubt that LW9 with APS could render billions of displaced polygons, far far far faster than Modo201 can....
And not just by a little, i mean my tests with MPD, last night blew out to 6hours with only 400,000 polys.... Similar thing in LW, would of taken seconds.

So i still have mixed feelings, again for paint/render it's cool.......
But after that MPD test last night, it looks unlikely to ever be my renderer of choice.......
That's very interesting. I would not have expected that.

RedBull
05-30-2006, 03:43 PM
That's very interesting. I would not have expected that.


Me either Earl... :)

Just wen't back and read some other posts, it seems T4D has found the same thing..... MR and XSI handle MPD, dozens of times faster.... I mean no contest... I read people on the Lux forums say it blows MR out of the water...
About the same on some GI scenes on my machines, but much slower using displacements.
I wonder if this is why there is no displacement painting.

I'm so glad LW is using APS and not MPD.!

Captain Obvious
05-30-2006, 04:35 PM
I don't know how I ever survived without iview. I'm using it as a material previewer at the moment, rendering a 400k polygon arch vis interior scene. Performance surpasses VIPER, and this is with full raytracing (including blurred reflections). If Fprime is even half as useful, I can see why it's so popular. :)

The renderer is a lot faster than Lightwave's in most of the scenes I've tried. Low-complexity stuff renders fairly slow, but stuff that brings LW's renderer to its knees churns along quite well in modo.

Chris S. (Fez)
05-30-2006, 05:10 PM
The renderer is a lot faster than Lightwave's in most of the scenes I've tried. Low-complexity stuff renders fairly slow, but stuff that brings LW's renderer to its knees churns along quite well in modo.

Including Lightwave 9? In my tests, I have found Lightwave 9 with the new perspective camera flies through heavy scenes and that the Displacement in 9is faster than 201.

Fprime is faster than iview. Also, being able to stop and start a render at any time is absolutely brilliant and makes Fprime completely unique. Viper is better in 9, but still worlds away from Fprime and Iview...

201 is also not nearly as stable as Lightwave 9 in my experience.

Overall, I am thrilled with both programs, but neither one has an overwhelming advantage IMO. Still, Fprime is not native. I am not sure I could set up a scene these days without an interactive preview.

Gregg "T.Rex"
05-30-2006, 06:14 PM
i have NO doubt that LW9 with APS could render billions of displaced polygons

Sorry pal, but you are totally wrong here...

Unfortunately, Lightwave 9 so far CAN NOT render billions of displaced polys with APS or anything displacement related. Displacement count is HEAVILY dependent on the amount of RAM you have. On my quad core 64bit WinXP system with 8GB RAM, i could reach a total of 20-25 million displaced polys, before running out of RAM, using LW 9 64bit version...

I've done thorough tests and have pushed the limits of APS as far as it permits and though light years ahead of LW 8.5, still we can't reach the billion poly counts, like other apps do quite easily and with minimum amount of RAM usage (Messiah, Modo, Maya, XSI etc.)

On the other hand, Modo's sub-pixel displacement is really fast, from the tests i've done so far on my workstation. Not slower than LW and i was using GI all the time...

NT is on the right path as far as displacements concerned; still there's a road ahead though...

Cheers,
Gregg

Chris S. (Fez)
05-30-2006, 06:54 PM
Wow. Billions of polygons? You guys must rendering some sick stuff.

Captain Obvious
05-30-2006, 07:34 PM
Including Lightwave 9? In my tests, I have found Lightwave 9 with the new perspective camera flies through heavy scenes and that the Displacement in 9is faster than 201.
I didn't preorder LW9, so I wouldn't know. But I can tell you one thing: it takes more than a 4x speedup for Lightwave's renderer to compete with modo's for the stuff I've rendered so far! However, this seems to mostly be because modo's irradiance cacher is better. I've been able to render stuff in modo with excellent quality with 256 indirect rays, that would've looked like crap in Lightwave with anything less than the maximum RPE setting.





201 is also not nearly as stable as Lightwave 9 in my experience.
I'm glad to hear that LW9 is more stable, but I really can't complain about 201 stability, either. It's a lot more stable than 103, and worlds beyond Lightwave 8.





Wow. Billions of polygons? You guys must rendering some sick stuff.
I decided to try using mesh paint in 201 to create grass. It took about five minutes on my single-CPU 1.6GHz G5 to render 1.1 billion polygons. Try doing that in Lightwave without HD-Instance. ;)

Of course, using mesh paint to paint out billions of polygons was utterly useless, and it didn't work very well at all... I'd much rather use HD-I for such things.

t4d
05-30-2006, 07:37 PM
Hi,

wait a minute: NO shadowmaps in modo ? Which means: no soft shadows for spotlights ? No render region, no shadowmaps, but its got motion blur , right ?

your missing the whole concept to attack Modo

Modo is a complete NEW 3D system
New surface system, New rendering engine, NEW lighting system

you don't need Shadow maps in the way your thinking
the tools in the package do all that you need, people just have to learn it.
spot lights do one type of lighting and is different to LW spot lights
and directions lights Work completely different to LW as well there changes to the whole 3D system coming from Lightwave
I worked out the shade tree Quickly due to being a XSI user as well

Modo 201 IT's faster and cleaner then LW and Fprime.
Has modeling tools every 3D user wants not just LW users
Has 3D painting and a workflow that rocks
the render is new and very powerful ( tho still growing )
But NO Animation does SUCK !

LW user throwing stones at Modo is alittle silly
abit like Modo users raising the Flag infront of Lightwave.
Modo is not a full 3D program but the area it covers, it does a good job at.
and Lightwave is in mid rewrite It can do more then Modo But alot needs improvment, you'd know this if you have XSI or Maya as reference of what a real 3D app can do.

IT will be interesting How much Newtek can really add in this LW 9 -10 cycle
and what Lux can add for 301 - 401
for me,. looking at 201 I feel Modo won't be a complete 3D solution untill 401
( abit like XSI 4, was the one to really start to fire up )

as for Lw 9 -10 I think the end of slapping on plugins has come for NT
they need to start really adding real NEW features and workflow
and show us Real changes in LW and new workflow needs to be created and some old workflow needs to DIE.

Because Modo has show me another way 3D can be done that is new and as flexiable as XSI, LW needs deep changes to keep up with the New boys.

Chris S. (Fez)
05-30-2006, 08:23 PM
I didn't preorder LW9, so I wouldn't know. But I can tell you one thing: it takes more than a 4x speedup for Lightwave's renderer to compete with modo's for the stuff I've rendered so far! However, this seems to mostly be because modo's irradiance cacher is better. I've been able to render stuff in modo with excellent quality with 256 indirect rays, that would've looked like crap in Lightwave with anything less than the maximum RPE setting.


I decided to try using mesh paint in 201 to create grass. It took about five minutes on my single-CPU 1.6GHz G5 to render 1.1 billion polygons. Try doing that in Lightwave without HD-Instance. ;)



That's crazy, but very cool Modo managed to eat through that many polygons:D ! I render grass and hair in Max all the time, but I must humbly admit most of my scenes don't go much higher than a few million polygons and I rarely turn on radiosity. Thus, my test scenes are almost certainly on the light side.

RedBull
05-30-2006, 09:15 PM
Sorry pal, but you are totally wrong here...

Unfortunately, Lightwave 9 so far CAN NOT render billions of displaced polys with APS or anything displacement related. Displacement count is HEAVILY dependent on the amount of RAM you have. On my quad core 64bit WinXP system with 8GB RAM, i could reach a total of 20-25 million displaced polys, before running out of RAM, using LW 9 64bit version...

I've done thorough tests and have pushed the limits of APS as far as it permits and though light years ahead of LW 8.5, still we can't reach the billion poly counts, like other apps do quite easily and with minimum amount of RAM usage (Messiah, Modo, Maya, XSI etc.)

On the other hand, Modo's sub-pixel displacement is really fast, from the tests i've done so far on my workstation. Not slower than LW and i was using GI all the time...

NT is on the right path as far as displacements concerned; still there's a road ahead though...

Cheers,
Gregg

Gregg, You are in fact correct to correct me....
I wasn't really thinking correctly when i said that.... Let me reclarify..

My MPD test last night in Modo201, even when i reduce it to 400 thousand
polys the render was expected to take 6 hours....

In Lightwave 8.5 or LW9 it would render this test in a few seconds.
a similarly displaced procedurally SubD in LW...

In LW obviously, i would displace in the viewport using SubD's, in Modo it's done at rendertime... Using APS i could make more polys at rendertimes...
but it would happen faster than Modo...

Now with some tweaking, maybe i can squeeze some more out of Modo...
It's still early days.... But displacement of millions of polys is something i do a lot.....

Modo201 definately handles memory better, and can render billions or many millions at least.... Has anyone done billions? So that's true... LW can't do billions, you are correct, so that was a stupid comparison.

But at LW capable polycounts, say 5 million procedurally displaced polys...
Is quite fast to render in LW, than my tests so far with MPD..

Even when using a SubPixel Displacement Shader in LW, that can render hundreds of millions of polygons... Some of my tests would be similar speed
to Modo... (I also forgot not many others have it)

I will try and make a test scene with LW APS and SPD and XSI and Modo MPD to test them, as close as i can..... There is no doubt on polygonal geometry and lighting 201's quick.... But i i feel like MR will destroy it on certain MPD tests. And i feel LW9 when using certain settings, compared to Modo, will also be much quicker.

Still as i said, i'm still only new to Modo201, so i hope to find some more tweaks.... I also find in Modo201, i can SLOW down the rendere majorly
by doing stupid, multiply and divide blending modes, with certain settings.
I mean the previewer will automatically become 20times slower...
So maybe it's just me at the moment, with certain surfaces.

Am i right in thinking Modo201 can only displace in MPD mode?
It can't do viewport displacements at all correct?

Meaning i can't take a brick patten, pump up the subd level, and make
a geometry based displaced object, like LW..... Correct?

JML
05-30-2006, 09:46 PM
I was looking on their web site, and forums, I noticed that mac users were the majority.
does it mean modo sucks on windows and they only optimized it well on osx ?

Intuition
05-30-2006, 11:47 PM
I didn't preorder LW9, so I wouldn't know. But I can tell you one thing: it takes more than a 4x speedup for Lightwave's renderer to compete with modo's for the stuff I've rendered so far! However, this seems to mostly be because modo's irradiance cacher is better. I've been able to render stuff in modo with excellent quality with 256 indirect rays, that would've looked like crap in Lightwave with anything less than the maximum RPE setting.

I'm glad to hear that LW9 is more stable, but I really can't complain about 201 stability, either. It's a lot more stable than 103, and worlds beyond Lightwave 8.



The main thing that blows my mind about Modos renderer is that it can render GI/Radiosity solutions so riduclously fast. I've been using F-Prime for any GI lighting so much I forgot about how painfully slow LW's GI solution is. Especially when you get into needing fine motion blur like advanced Antialiasing.

I've seen 9 come along way in the last 4 months and so much ground has been covered. That being said I never really do any 3d anymore without GI lighting. So, seeing Modo201 burn through these renders blows my mind.

I hope that Lightwave Radiosity/GI gets an overhaul sometime soon. I could only hope for radiosity to as fast in 9 as it is in 201. My current solution for this is in getting a64bit dual processor with each having dual core system. I am hoping to shore up some slowdowns that way for now.

As much as I love and Gush for Lightwave there is a sense of sadness when I press render in modo and watch it kill radiosity effortlessly. Now, of course Modo's renderer is missing alot as well too but you have to admit thats a great first impression from Lux. If the current radical idea trend is any indication then the future is bright for Lux.

Come on NT give us new radiosity solutions so we can abuse GI all day long :D

Panikos
05-31-2006, 12:40 AM
Come on NT give us new radiosity solutions so we can abuse GI all day long :D

I've been waiting this for some years now, but Elvis left the building.
FPrime saved Newtek and Newtek wrote that 3rd party renderers are not a priority.

ufo3d
05-31-2006, 12:41 AM
I'm not sure on how you set up your scene, but its very nippy here with HDRI and MC radiosity.

Almost on par with MR in most cases.

4400+

Cheers.

I used some simple box and sphere to test the speed of SSS. it took 2-3 seconds without SSS, but it took 24+ sec with SSS.

edit: I just tried to render with GI+SSS, it took more than 10 minutes so I just cancel it....

ufo3d
05-31-2006, 12:42 AM
I've been waiting this for some years now, but Elvis left the building.
FPrime saved Newtek and Newtek wrote that 3rd party renderers are not a priority.

I hope one day I could use LW with Mental ray, vray or brzail. :)

Panikos
05-31-2006, 04:30 AM
I hope one day I could use LW with Mental ray, vray or brzail. :)

A poet wrote "Never accept hopes in vain"

phil lawson
05-31-2006, 05:53 AM
edit: I just tried to render with GI+SSS, it took more than 10 minutes so I just cancel it....

Really not sure whats happening there for you...A default cube and a ball with default sss except 7mm depth, renders here in 1m 45s with MC GI 512 indriect rays with 8xAA. Are you using irradiance cache? if so, untick that and use standard GI.

Cheers.

Gregg "T.Rex"
05-31-2006, 05:55 AM
At the moment i'm sleeping and...
...my wildest dream right now, is a merge between Lux, NT, pmG and Worley as one big happy family-company, in a seamless effort to battle Autodesk giant...
:D :heart: :bday:

:sleeping: Xrrr........ :sleeping: Xrrrr....

Gregg

mattclary
05-31-2006, 06:13 AM
Kudos to NewTek for not shutting this thread down. Not sure why they have been so tolerant, but it's welcome. :thumbsup:

phil lawson
05-31-2006, 06:19 AM
Kudos to NewTek for not shutting this thread down. Not sure why they have been so tolerant, but it's welcome. :thumbsup:

I do have to agree Matt...its not the place to discuss such problems and I'm sorry for posting as such above.

Luxology have support forums, I'd gladly take up this discussion there.

It is a nice change though by Newtek to allow such a topic to continue based on products in competition with LW.

I think one thing we can all agree on is that :lwicon: [9] has made leaps and bounds over older releases.

Cheers.

Gregg "T.Rex"
05-31-2006, 06:32 AM
I do have to agree Matt...its not the place to discuss such problems and I'm sorry for posting as such above.

Luxology have support forums, I'd gladly take up this discussion there.

It is a nice change though by Newtek to allow such a topic to continue based on products in competition with LW.

I think one thing we can all agree on is that :lwicon: [9] has made leaps and bounds over older releases.

Cheers.
Modo is great, but Lightwave have nothing to fear about it. At the moment and for a year or two, Modo can be a great -expensive though- "plugin" for all Lightwave users.

NT is aware of that and they should not -and they don't- pay much attention on it. That is, no more than make Lightwave shine once again, like they do with LW9...

Healthy competition is good and can make everybody better...

Gregg

colkai
05-31-2006, 07:13 AM
Let's face it, Hex2 has also given some people a slap in the face.
Sure, it's somewhat buggy, but for $32 folks are going to get all 2.X upgrades for free, with 2.1 due soon.

It's a strange market out there and that's for sure, not that it matters too much for me as far as LW is concerned.

With LW9, we've seen some very good improvements. Yes, I'm sure many folks consider them long overdue, no doubt some will shout "too little, too late" (as they normally do), but my money is already on LW9 and I have faith and hope that Newtek will produce some very nice features by the end of the LW9.X cycle.

Now a lot of the old code has been swept away, I would imagine it will allow the dev team to focus more on moving forward and making the new code modular and easier to enhance.

Captain Obvious
05-31-2006, 07:37 AM
I was looking on their web site, and forums, I noticed that mac users were the majority.
does it mean modo sucks on windows and they only optimized it well on osx ?
No. modo works just as well on Windows. According to Luxology, about 40% of the customers are Mac users, and the remaining 60% are Windows users.





The main thing that blows my mind about Modos renderer is that it can render GI/Radiosity solutions so riduclously fast.
Coming from Kray, I'm a bit doubtful about that... It's really fast for some things, but arch vis interiors are much faster in Kray, I think.

JML
05-31-2006, 09:01 AM
No. modo works just as well on Windows. According to Luxology, about 40% of the customers are Mac users, and the remaining 60% are Windows users.


so how come 80% of threads are in the mac specific forum, and 20% in the windows specific forum ?
do they just talk more ? :)

Rayek
05-31-2006, 09:52 AM
I've played with Modo at a friend's place. As far as I could tell, there's still no displacement painting. And the painting tools don't reach the capabilities of Bodypaint, which I use with Lightwave.

While trying out some of the modelling in Modo, at one time I kept thinking I was working in Lightwave... ofcourse I wasn't. This was a good thing. The example renders are really good, much better than, for example cinema4d's. The fprime-like thing was cool to use.

On the other hand, I didn't really like the material tree approach. The node editor in LW9 is just so much better in use. And they say you'll work with the material tree as if working with layers in Photoshop, but then, they haven't used bodypaint as of yet, me thinks. The price is also an issue.

Meanwhile, I'm having a ball with displacement painting in Hexagon 2. People keep saying 'it isn't zbrush', but I'm glad it isn't! Way more friendly and fun to use. It's also easy to create your own displacement brushes. The next Silo edition will include the displacement bit and a video on their site looked almost like Hexagon's painting.

So, I'll keep using my shed of tools. There's nothing yet to allure me to the modo side of the 3d universe. Lightwave 9 keeps me happy.

cgolchert
05-31-2006, 09:56 AM
so how come 80% of threads are in the mac specific forum, and 20% in the windows specific forum ?
do they just talk more ? :)


Yes, Mac users post in forums. PC users work. :)

Intuition
05-31-2006, 11:48 AM
No. modo works just as well on Windows. According to Luxology, about 40% of the customers are Mac users, and the remaining 60% are Windows users.


Coming from Kray, I'm a bit doubtful about that... It's really fast for some things, but arch vis interiors are much faster in Kray, I think.


Oh yes, lest I forget. Kray is still a [email protected]@$$ when it comes to GI speeds. Plus Kray is doing caustics very well. 201 Has a kind of colored shadow approach to caustics which is ok for alot of stuff but Kray really gives the transparency a nice refracted lightbeam look.

I hope tha Kray will be able to work with Node shading. Then you'll have a champ 3rd partyrender engine for LW.

Mike_RB
05-31-2006, 04:43 PM
It's cool that they included a "modeler" button in modo. To align an item back to the world you just click the Axis button next to the item, the entire world aligns itself so you get the item at 0,0,0 and you see it's relationship to the world, very cool.

http://www.elementvfx.com/WebDemo/ref_coords.jpg

Lightwolf
06-01-2006, 12:52 AM
It's cool that they included a "modeler" button in modo. To align an item back to the world you just click the Axis button next to the item, the entire world aligns itself so you get the item at 0,0,0 and you see it's relationship to the world, very cool.

...which is exactly what I would expect once Layout and Modeler are merged.
Oh, and construction planes in Modeller would be oh so neat as well...

Cheers,
Mike

Matt
06-01-2006, 12:39 PM
With LW9, we've seen some very good improvements. Yes, I'm sure many folks consider them long overdue, no doubt some will shout "too little, too late" (as they normally do), but my money is already on LW9 and I have faith and hope that Newtek will produce some very nice features by the end of the LW9.X cycle.

Now a lot of the old code has been swept away, I would imagine it will allow the dev team to focus more on moving forward and making the new code modular and easier to enhance.

My sentiments exactly, I have absolute faith in LW9, it's starting to 'feel' right again, if you know what I mean.

Have no regrets whatsoever about pre-ordering it now I've had chance to play with it.

Go NewTek! :)

Captain Obvious
06-01-2006, 03:06 PM
so how come 80% of threads are in the mac specific forum, and 20% in the windows specific forum ?
do they just talk more ? :)
In my experience, when a Mac user has non-platform-specific issues, he is much more likely to post in the Mac-specific forum than a Windows user.




Oh yes, lest I forget. Kray is still a [email protected]@$$ when it comes to GI speeds. Plus Kray is doing caustics very well. 201 Has a kind of colored shadow approach to caustics which is ok for alot of stuff but Kray really gives the transparency a nice refracted lightbeam look.
Actually, modo doesn't do caustics at all. Oh well. I'm hoping modo 202 will feature photon mapping. That will greatly improve the renderer's capabilities as an interior arch vis renderer. And I've had nothing but problems getting good caustics in Kray... :p

RedBull
06-01-2006, 03:23 PM
Can i ask Modo 201 users to do a simple test:

Make a single polygon, add a 16bit displacement map, and render...
How many polys are you able to render without memory issues? (no instancing) It seems Modo is just amaingly bad, at displacement...

I have managed to squeeze 12.4 million polys, out if it, but run out of memory for anything else... Even with 4GB of RAM, Modo just can't handle it.

It seems when people tried this on the Lux forum, Nobody could render any decent amount of polygons...

I can render more polys in LW, and i can handle more polys in the viewport.
Tell me i'm lying?

Lux website claims:
"It can render billions of polygons at enormous frame sizes"

In my experiences show Modo 201 can't render millions of polys at 640x480....
201 was really growing on me, (I made a LW Interface for it) But it seriously can't even render a piddly displaced terrain, at 640x480...

The only way Modo201 can do billions, is with instancing... Something HD-Instance can already do.... I'm actually so disappointed with that, i can't explain... :(

Has anyone managed to use 201 with effective displacements?

tyrot
06-01-2006, 03:28 PM
dear LWers..

I am reading these threads for years!. So i thought i should be telling this in LWian way. This is Not with guitars..no rock.:) SO Enjoy.

http://www.lwian.com (for lyrics...a bit long..sorry)

http://www.lwian.com/mp3/LWvsModo-chronicleoflordbeeper.MP3

for Those, survived from these threads and still keep LW dongles..:)

BEST

Lightwolf
06-01-2006, 03:43 PM
Make a single polygon, add a 16bit displacement map, and render...

Did you read the reply on the Lux forum? If you create more polygons Modo is more effective at adding micro-polygons. Subdivide your single polygon and it should work fine.

I've got plenty of other issues with it, but that isn't one of them ;)

Cheers,
Mike

RedBull
06-01-2006, 04:06 PM
Yeah i have read the posts from Allen...
(well at least their developers, do keep in touch with their forums, although they never did here)

These can all improve things....
And Allen has said, that 202 will improve on this area more....
But i mean a week after they release, and they are already promising 202 will be better... (I feel like i'm dealing with the OLD NT crew) :)

But when they make a claim like Billions at Print res, and on X2 machine with mutliple 4Gb's can't make it render 15million at 640x480...
I think it's misleading advertising.

I can render heaps of actual polys, but Displaced anything brings 201 to it's knees, way to easily...

I wouldn't mind seeing what the most amount of displaced polys, one can render at 640x480 on say a machine with 2GB, using displacements..

Honestly, i think Modeleing and Painting are quite excellent....
But i'm starting to grip my LW and XSI dongles, that little bit harder.

I'm almost embarrassed for Modo's renderer....
Technically it looks great, but running out of memory on a 640x480 render...
It seems like one of LW's biggest problems, is even worse with Modo.

I mean i can watch it displace in Realtime in LW and FPrime, at HDTV RES.
Just seems like such backward step. If it comes down to a slowish renderer, or one that can't render at all....

As someone who uses 16bit displacements for terrains, daily....
Modo is not the renderer of choice...

Intuition
06-01-2006, 09:14 PM
We did a test render of Nimrod, from our 2005 nbc TV show Surface inside Modo and we had to tweak the settings alot because we kept runnin out of memory. Finally we got some of the displacment down enough to render a pass.

We are testing on a 64bit machine that has 8GB ram.

Although, since modo is running in 32 bit mode I think its limiting to 2GB ram and then going Virtual ram. I am not 100% sure about that though.

Yes, for some of 201's astounding render speeds it also has some problems as well. For me its a nice GI alternative to Maxwell render. So for now its only a quick GI still frame solution, that is until I can get more modelling practice with it. Some things I can model quickly in 201 and others I can do in 9 quicker. But at this point its my 11 year experience with Modeler that is showing bias in my judgement. ;)

t4d
06-01-2006, 09:17 PM
So for now its only a quick GI still frame solution, that is until I can get more modelling practice with it. Some things I can model quickly in 201 and others I can do in 9 quicker. But at this point its my 11 year experience with Modeler that is showing bias in my judgement. ;)

agree

as for modeling in Modo I was thinking that way for awhile LW & modo even

But once I got the idea of the tools pipe and all the other extra's modo got
You'll go straight to modo ;)

RedBull
06-01-2006, 11:45 PM
Thanks Intuition for letting me know...

And i agree with T4D and yourself, there are still a lot of Modeling tools that LW has, that Modo does not. But the main everyday ones, are there and well implemented..

10 Years of LW bias, is hard to shake overnight.... I agree...

And so many nice parts of Modo, like the totally customizable interface
which i now have looking exactly like LW Modeler...
And i still have to make a Layout tab, to mimic Layout...

I can see myself warming to areas of Modo201.
But i see a lot of little mistakes, that remind me of LW mistakes..

Personally for Modeling, i rely on so many free and commercial scripts...
Modo doesn't have the third party resources to cover all the gaps.

For organic modelling it's good, but for mechanical and tech stuff, archviz and FX, i just can't really see Modo201 doing it all that well yet..

digefxgrp
06-02-2006, 12:09 AM
Red Bull-
Could you possibly post a picture showing off your Modo-Wave interface?

In Modo 102 I started trying to duplicate my Modeler layout but never could figure out how to add the layer buttons PLUS Modo kept crashing every 5 minutes. I just gave up and decided to wait for 201. So far 201 has been crash-free so I think it's time to venture back into tryng to make that LW interface.
Thanks-

Craig Paup
Digital EFX Group

radams
06-02-2006, 12:27 AM
Personally for Modeling, i rely on so many free and commercial scripts...
Modo doesn't have the third party resources to cover all the gaps.

For organic modelling it's good, but for mechanical and tech stuff, archviz and FX, i just can't really see Modo201 doing it all that well yet..

Hi RedBull,

Could you elaborate more on the tech stuff issues with Modo... Please contact me off forum as to not clog NT's forum with Modo things...

I'm in the process evalutating 3D workflows for industrial/manufacturing design. Modo and LW are just two of 6 options I'm looking at this time. (I've been along time LW user and just purchased the LW9 upgrade...are you also a LW beta member ?).

[email protected]

Skype: radams6

Thanks for your time and insights !!!

Cheers,

RedBull
06-02-2006, 03:03 AM
radams: I will contact you off list..
(give me a day or so, i have a backlog of PM's and messages and sleep to do

Digifxgrp: I will post a shot soon... I too have a lot of crashing problems when editing interfaces with Modo201.
Worse even after you save the Layout before it crashes it still won't save it anyway. So it's taking a lot longer to do than i would like...

There is a very clever LW Model Interface for 102, which mimics Modeler for which i used as base, and 201 contains a preset called simplified, which is a good start to making something similar... I will be happy to post a few screen shots shortly It was seeing that done in Modo, that made me far more excited, about using it.... It's like a dream come true, i've wanted to improve LW/Modeler interface
for such a long time, and now not only can i mimic it, but add those little extra workflow enhancers...

Yay i can make this brand new spanky interface, look just like my old ****ty one.... And i wouldn't have it any other way.. :)

So i'll post a shot of what LW Modeler 10 should look like... :)

Captain Obvious
06-02-2006, 09:12 AM
Just for the **** of it, I started rendering the 2PolyCanyon scene on my iBook. It's 5.7 million polygons, with raytracing and three GI bounces, and it renders just fine. Not exactly break-neck speed, but I think that might be because it's a 1.33GHz G4. ;) Total render time was slightly less than 18 minutes, but I was using the computer for other stuff at the same time. On something like an X2 system, the render time would probably be about five minutes. That's almost six million polygons, with multi-bounce GI!

I'm trying something similar in Lightwave right now. I've turned up the subdivision level high enough to get about 5.5 million polygons. It's been "Updating geometry" for ten minutes now... I'll let you know when it finishes. It should be noted that Lightwave only uses 300-something megabytes of RAM, though!



There's also this (http://forums.luxology.com/discussion/topic.aspx?id=7749).

kennez
06-02-2006, 10:37 AM
Just for the **** of it, I started rendering the 2PolyCanyon scene on my iBook. It's 5.7 million polygons, with raytracing and three GI bounces, and it renders just fine. Not exactly break-neck speed, but I think that might be because it's a 1.33GHz G4. ;) Total render time was slightly less than 18 minutes, but I was using the computer for other stuff at the same time. On something like an X2 system, the render time would probably be about five minutes. That's almost six million polygons, with multi-bounce GI!


Rendering that same scene on my 1.8GHz iMac G5, I got a time of 8min 42.9s. Definately not bad!

ItsPete
06-02-2006, 12:06 PM
hey anyone know if the hex 2 blue light ($32) special is over? i emailed daz but haven't heard back. went to buy it but the platinum club offer doesn't come up anymore... boohoo... oh well guess it's 32 bucks more towards zbrush...

cresshead
06-02-2006, 12:47 PM
hexagon2 deal IS OVER....

no doubt there will be another deal in the near future...maybe when the usa dev team get ahold of hexagon 2 and squah the remaining bugs and maybe add a few new features...2.1 or 2.5..i'd expect some news at siggraph show.

ItsPete
06-02-2006, 12:50 PM
durnit - missed by a day?! guess i ought to pay more attention to what's goin on! thanks for confirming anyway.

pat-lek
06-02-2006, 01:25 PM
hexagon2 deal IS OVER....

no doubt there will be another deal in the near future...maybe when the usa dev team get ahold of hexagon 2 and squah the remaining bugs and maybe add a few new features...2.1 or 2.5..i'd expect some news at siggraph show.

There is an update, Hex 2,01
http://www.daz3d.com/support/downloads.php?product=hexagon

cresshead
06-02-2006, 01:37 PM
i'vebeen hearing mixed results with the 2.01 patch for hexagon2...some get more bugs and crashes...i've held off so far..

pat-lek
06-02-2006, 01:51 PM
On my mac, work much more better with this patch.

But now, with DAZ, i'm not sure of the futur of hexagon.

RedBull
06-02-2006, 10:11 PM
Just for the **** of it, I started rendering the 2PolyCanyon scene on my iBook. It's 5.7 million polygons, with raytracing and three GI bounces, and it renders just fine. Not exactly break-neck speed, but I think that might be because it's a 1.33GHz G4. ;) Total render time was slightly less than 18 minutes, but I was using the computer for other stuff at the same time. On something like an X2 system, the render time would probably be about five minutes. That's almost six million polygons, with multi-bounce GI!

I'm trying something similar in Lightwave right now. I've turned up the subdivision level high enough to get about 5.5 million polygons. It's been "Updating geometry" for ten minutes now... I'll let you know when it finishes. It should be noted that Lightwave only uses 300-something megabytes of RAM, though!

There's also this (http://forums.luxology.com/discussion/topic.aspx?id=7749).

Well i also just tried something fun, I tried loading a 376Mb .obj file
(a Tree made in Carrera5) 2.5+Million Polys....

Modo201 loads it, in a few minutes but can't display or render it at all,
it just warns me that it's critically low on resources.... (the first time i tried it, it just dropped out completely)

Same .obj in Layout, loaded around 4times longer as Modo,
But can display in OGL, Wireframe and render at 960x540 (my default resolution) and Modo could not render at 640x480. I can move in the viewports without a problem, Keep in mind this is LW8.5, Win32 version.....
LW9, 64 obviously has far more potential.

The link that you gave is obviously using instancing..... ?

I can't render more than around 12million displaced polys. (that uses around 1.6Gb of geocache, leaving not enough to render) So there's no way he got 100 million displaced without 100GB of RAM... or instancing.

Worse the tree i just used to test, prooves that it's not only the MPD that can cause problems for Modo, but actual poly object it can't handle well either. I'm not sure if it's the 2.5M polys or the 376Mb object size, Modo does not like....

In this case if i wanted instancing, Modo was useless......

It could not even render one tree!, So it obviously didn't have enough memory to instance any others ..... These are just some of the problems i have with the Modo renderer... It seems like a step backwards in many areas.

I mean it's only taken a few days, to find several areas where the new, can't even match the old.

The other problem is everytime you move the Camera in Modo201,
you need to tweak the MPD and stride length to smooth out the lego like jaggies, trying to find the nicest combination....

So you have a shot looks perfect, 2million polys...
Move the camera, that shot now has 12 million or 200 thousand, forcing you to readjust.... APS is far more intuitve, plus the camera distance option
allows it to be adjusted automatically.....

Being fast, is great! But if it can't load or render the geometry in the first place, it's hardly a great thing....

Mike_RB
06-02-2006, 10:22 PM
I'm betting both the 12M render cap, and the problem loading more than 2.5M polys is temporary. Probably due to being late on this release.

RedBull
06-02-2006, 10:47 PM
I know both reasons for the tree not loading, and hitting a ceiling of about 12M displaced polys, both are temporary problems. The 2.5M poly problem comes from modo using a lot more ram for openGL, it holds everything it possibly can in openGL to speed up viewport interaction and allow painting, seeing as modo201 is currently marketed as a modeler/painter it seems like an "ok" design tradeoff. Until they have a system to throw out some of that extra GL info when you try and pull in more geometry, allowing for slower viewport but letting you have more poly data loaded. As a test, create a layout with no 3D viewports, you will be able to load your tree, hit "f9" and you'll get a render as well. (except your camera wont be looking at anything interesting...)

The displacement issue comes from the dumping part of the geocache not being implemented yet. The geocache is supposed be a cap, and it should flush geometry no longer needed by the current bucket so you will be able to render those billions of polys. Again I think because they were late the flushing part got bumped into a future version. Currently the "billions" number only applys to instances.

I tried to make a clear layout, no buttons or 3D viewports...
The object loaded in about 1Gb of memory, hitting F9 just sucked the other 1Gb memory i had left, it got a few buckets in before it ran out of memory.
This is a major concern to myself. 3Gb would likely cover the 3Million polys needed to render. But LW certainly passes without a problem.

It does make me wonder how Modo will handle displacement painting too.
Honestly these issues need to resolved as a priority over new features.

Yeah, Allen has mentioned that already they have dramatically improved
the Geocache issue, but until it's done i'm not sold on the renderer.
It does seem to use abnormal amounts of memory for displacement as is now.

And todays problem of not rendering the tree, certainly shows they have some work to do before it's even as functional in those aspects in comparison to LW.

Snosrap
06-02-2006, 11:15 PM
Being fast, is great! But if it can't load or render the geometry in the first place, it's hardly a great thing....


Not even so sure about being fast. Changing the grid size has no effect when your mouse is in the camera viewport. And it really is flaky otherwise. I've had my cameras and lights jump all over the place while placing them. LW is way more intuitive in this regard. And did I mention that modo is slooooow! Not in rendering so much, but I-View is slow and moving lights and stuff is painfully slow.

Cheers
Snos

RedBull
06-03-2006, 02:01 AM
digefxgrp:

This is my current Modo/Modeler interface...

It's not perfect, and if Modo would stop crashing on me when i'm editing menu layouts, and learn to save ALL the menu settings in the configs i'd be a little happier too. Here is the latest revision, still needs a fair bit of work before i'll be happy with it.

Just say no to Icons... :)

cresshead
06-03-2006, 02:28 AM
crashing, slow, poor memory handling, 2million poly limit, 12 million poly displacement limit...are these features of a 'new faster than the speed of though't 3d app?

Panikos
06-03-2006, 02:56 AM
Hehe, reminds me of LW.
Public open beta since 7.0.

kennez
06-03-2006, 02:57 AM
crashing, slow, poor memory handling, 2million poly limit, 12 million poly displacement limit...are these features of a 'new faster than the speed of though't 3d app?

Personally, I haven't had a crash on my PC yet, and I've only had one crash on my Mac, and that was loading an LWO file made in Lightwave.

As for slow - it outperforms Lightwave on my systems, especially the rendering compared to RC2 (which is dreadful on my Mac). Not to mention the fact that I have no display issues at all under OSX, unlike LW9, where I have complained about it since about Build 5 with nothing being done to correct it. I haven't even been contacted by anybody at Newtek to try and halp me solve the issues.

I really do like Lightwave, but as I use both platforms, I feel that Newtek is hanging me out to dry with OSX. Lux seem to care a lot more about their Mac userbase.

(and no, I am NOT a fanboy. To me, software is software. If it is the best tool for the task at hand, I'll try to use it. I don't care about brand or anything like that!)

digefxgrp
06-03-2006, 03:20 AM
Redbull:
Thanks for posting the image. Sounds like you're also having the same problems I am. Make a slight change to the interface and when you go to save it....crash. Then you've just lost the change and have to do it all over again. I experienced this with 102,103 AND 201. Other than that though, it's been real stable.
There still must be a bug lurking somewhere that doesn't like it when you redesign the interface to look like LW. :cursin:


kennez: The other thing Modo outperforms Modeler in is it's basic toolset. Both programs share quite a few of the same tools, but in Modo they're far more robust with constant real-time feedback. I too will still use Modeler for the time being, especially with LWCad 2 just around the corner (among other 3rd party Modeling tools) but whenever I do go back into Modeler it feels like I'm taking a big step backwards. Newtek really needs to update the core tools.

Captain Obvious
06-03-2006, 10:30 AM
crashing, slow, poor memory handling, 2million poly limit, 12 million poly displacement limit...are these features of a 'new faster than the speed of though't 3d app?
201 is very stable for me, and really fast too. Honestly, I don't see why you even care. You don't like modo, and you don't use it. Why do you whine about it?

cresshead
06-03-2006, 10:52 AM
just putting some 'balance' back into the equation as hype never really matches upto reality

Captain Obvious
06-03-2006, 12:20 PM
just putting some 'balance' back into the equation as hype never really matches upto reality
The crazy people who believe that modo is the only 3D app worth using won't be reading this thread anyway...

sliceadjust
06-03-2006, 12:23 PM
Its really hard to compare Modo with Lightwave right now. We are just starting to see what Lightwave 9 can do. I would wait and see what people start doing with lw 9 and then we can really start drawing some conclusions. Time will put everything in perspective.

These are examples of what we can expect from lw's new shading system.
http://www.newtek.com/forums/showthread.php?t=51832

Captain Obvious
06-03-2006, 01:04 PM
Its really hard to compare Modo with Lightwave right now. We are just starting to see what Lightwave 9 can do. I would wait and see what people start doing with lw 9 and then we can really start drawing some conclusions. Time will put everything in perspective.

These are examples of what we can expect from lw's new shading system.
http://www.newtek.com/forums/showthread.php?t=51832
Of course, we're also just starting to see what modo 201 can do as well... ;) And looking at images to determine which application is the better does not make sense. It depends on so many other factors, like artistic skill and time spent and whatnot. You can't just look at a few LW9 renderings and a few modo 201 renderings and try to determine a winner. It's not how it works.

lw3d23
06-03-2006, 01:27 PM
201 is very stable for me, and really fast too. Honestly, I don't see why you even care. You don't like modo, and you don't use it. Why do you whine about it?


Modo is good , but it is quite buggy and not stable at all . I doesn't mean I don't trust you, Captain Obvious. some ppl reported it is quite buggy, but some ppl said it is stable.

when loading any LW secne (with texture), it took very long time. during scene loading , if I click abort, MODO will quit, it seems not crash cos I didn't see the winXP crash message .

iVew always didn't update and it is very very slow , even I clicked reset, still no response until doing something such as draging the viewport. I thought Fprime is not good, but now I think FPrime is is very very good now after I tried ivew.


when I hit F9, sometimes it didn't rendering anything, simetimes it is only backdrop. I was not sure this is bug , probably I did something wrong. Then I did some tests again, when F9 didn't everything, I hit F9 once again(without clicking anything), everthing is OK then.

some scenes(lxo) cannot be opened : "Scene load was unsucessful"

the grain and noise on reflection are very terrible. lot of renders in Lux forum also have such problem.

it also need some improvement, such as SSS and rendering speed.

sliceadjust
06-03-2006, 01:39 PM
Of course, we're also just starting to see what modo 201 can do as well... ;) And looking at images to determine which application is the better does not make sense. It depends on so many other factors, like artistic skill and time spent and whatnot. You can't just look at a few LW9 renderings and a few modo 201 renderings and try to determine a winner. It's not how it works.
True....but out of the box I think Modo renders are looking much better then most of lw 9's. I would argue that lightwave's new shading system has made the learning curve a bit steeper and so we are not seeing the kind of renders its capable of. Logically your right about there being many factors but lets just be honest most people make snap judgments. Just read some of the comments from both this forum and luxology's. I just was responding to someone at Luxology who pretty much handed Lightwave its walking papers based upon what he has seen in the last week ( from Modo).

Captain Obvious
06-03-2006, 01:49 PM
Modo is good , but it is quite buggy and not stable at all . I doesn't mean I don't trust you, Captain Obvious. some ppl reported it is quite buggy, but some ppl said it is stable.
I guess the mileage varies. It's crashed a few times for me as well, but coming from LW8.2, 201 is practically rock solid. ;)





when I hit F9, sometimes it didn't rendering anything, simetimes it is only backdrop. I was not sure this is bug , probably I did something wrong. Then I did some tests again, when F9 didn't everything, I hit F9 once again(without clicking anything), everthing is OK then.
This is a confirmed bug, and it will be fixed for the next release. The workaround is to always close the render window with the button that says "close", instead of the system widget.





I would argue that lightwave's new shading system has made the learning curve a bit steeper and so we are not seeing the kind of renders its capable of.
I don't know about that... The shading system in modo is unlike anything I've ever used before. The nodal system in Lightwave seems fairly similar to Shadermaker Pro from Pixels 3D... I'm sure people accustomed to the shading trees in XSI or whatever won't have severe problems with Lightwave's nodal system.

Emmanuel
06-03-2006, 01:55 PM
True....but out of the box I think Modo renders are looking much better then most of lw 9's. Just read some of the comments from both this forum and luxology's. I just was responding to someone at Luxology who pretty much handed Lightwave its walking papers based upon what he has seen in the last week ( from Modo).

[Comments on personalities removed by the moderators], and I wouldn't say that modo has a better renderer.If You look at the NT gallery, You'll find quite a lot of pictures that are of the same or even better quality, if You consider the car renders for example.
I grant modo that they might have better and faster ways to do certain things like glass or thickness, but I doubt that any non-hardcore-user would really be able to tell the difference.
There are people who claim that C4D has a better output quality, others swear by Vray.
Whatever, its all comp-food anyway :)

sliceadjust
06-03-2006, 06:52 PM
Emmanual you must watch that temper of yours. I think it comes back to the ole "how its used creedo". I have seen amazing things done in Blender and then I have seen complete crap done in XSI. I have always loved Lightwave because to me it always seemed the most user friendly. Notice I used the "me" or "I" if you will. Hopefully Modo and Lightwave can coexist in the coming years and both survivie the ever changing market. What fun would it be not have petty and meaningless conversations about who's package is bigger.......whoops I mean better.

Emmanuel
06-04-2006, 06:04 AM
I agree, also about my temper, but that guy REALLY goes to far, i mean how deep can You sink when You *start* a thread in the modo thing titled "Everything is better than LW", I mean, come on, really.

Captain Obvious
06-04-2006, 07:58 AM
I agree, also about my temper, but that guy REALLY goes to far, i mean how deep can You sink when You *start* a thread in the modo thing titled "Everything is better than LW", I mean, come on, really.
This is from the same guy who said "no real 3D work has ever been done on a Mac."

JML
06-04-2006, 02:37 PM
do you see the window bar on top of modo ?

this make it look like it's a bad port to windows.

if they would spend an equal amount of time on the window version,
they could have had modo go full screen like in LW, instead of having that
on top of their interface.

that exact same issue, remindes me of the window version of electric image (EI6.5) which is plain horrible. (on osx it's much better, but on windows it's just unusable)

frantbk
06-04-2006, 02:56 PM
From all of the rumors and glossed over comments on tools and functions that are not to end users satisfaction after 9 months of development and 4.5 months of Friday updates. Can it be said that Modo 201 is on the same path that lead to lightwave 8? Nothing was said in 4.5 months about the memory requirement jumping to 1 Gig, nor was the GUI talked about needing a widescreen monitor because Lux was heading in that direction towards the newer style hardware. Too much hype and not enough substance for everyone's ecpectation of the finished product?

That seems to be the major problem with modo 201 from the rumors and glossed over comments.

RedBull
06-04-2006, 03:11 PM
I don't mind the Windows GUI up the top at all.....

It would be nice if it was optional to remove it, but again
Everything from Internet Explorer, to Photoshop uses this GUI element.

In LW i have a vertical File, Edit, Windows Presets, in Modo i have a horizontal one, The modo one is better optimized for screen space, it allows more buttons on my vertical bars....

sliceadjust
06-04-2006, 03:23 PM
I think Hype is normal part of anticipation. I cannot blame people for being excited. Rarely does the hype ever equal reality. I personally think Modo has tons of potential and I like the people in charge (even if they left Lightwave).

RedBull
06-04-2006, 03:37 PM
That seems to be the major problem with modo 201 from the rumors and glossed over comments.

I do agree, I think Modo201 was over-hyped and definately fell short of my own expectations.. 6months behind release, No linux version, Plenty of Bugs and stability issues and heaps of unpolished features.

You can't help but feel, that Lux are intent on making many of the problems LW already has, makes me thing NT were never the bad guys, but the former dev team may of been (something i wouldn't of thought before 201)

Many areas where the Renderer can't even old it's own to it's predecessor.
On the lux forums, there is now a huge amount of people, not having enough memory to do simple renders, i think it's a bit of a failure actually.

Ironically i've heard Allen, make comments on their OLD renderer, and less impressive it is.....

I have to say LW that can render a 640x480 render, and Modo can't makes Modo's fast AA and GI seem like a whole lot less important, when i can hardly make a simple object and render it. With that fast GI...

It is really frustrating, to make a scene render change the angle,
and not be able to get it to render ever again...

Modo does achieve many nice things over LW, and it's ground up core
gives it signifigant advantage in the future possibilities...

Paint and Modeling are nice, integrated and offer many enhancements and workflow advantages over LW.

But on the rendering side, they have a lot of work to before it will get used on anything but the most low poly basic lighting setup, or for painting for myself.
XSI MR and LW and FPrime, offer me WAY to many advantages over Modo.
Anyway i feel like i'm repeating myself on this thread. So enough said.

Modo is definately some way off ever being a viable replacement to the many tools i already use.

JML
06-04-2006, 04:54 PM
I don't mind the Windows GUI up the top at all.....

It would be nice if it was optional to remove it, but again
Everything from Internet Explorer, to Photoshop uses this GUI element.


I did not mean that it's ugly,

I meant that it look like they took the code for osx, change 1 or 2 fix there and there and voila the window version, so pretty much an emulation
of the osx version unoptimize for windows.

frantbk
06-04-2006, 05:29 PM
Yes the 1 Gig memory requirement for Modo 201 is too much of a jump from the 500 meg required for modo 102/103. Modo 201 needs 1 Gig or it will not launch. Window 2K/XP only alots 2 Gig to each program unless you use the 3 Gig switch. If you use the 3 Gig switch then 2K/XP will only use 3 Gig and ignores anything above that.

Modo 201's 32 bit memory is geared for the Mac. I find nothing wrong with that if Lux had and would just be honest about it, but they're not. Lux keeps saying they are a 50/50 PC/Mac company, but they're not. Modo 201 memory issue proves it.

RedBull
06-04-2006, 05:44 PM
Yes the 1 Gig memory requirement for Modo 201 is too much of a jump from the 500 meg required for modo 102/103. Modo 201 needs 1 Gig or it will not launch. Window 2K/XP only alots 2 Gig to each program unless you use the 3 Gig switch. If you use the 3 Gig switch then 2K/XP will only use 3 Gig and ignores anything above that.

Modo 201's 32 bit memory is geared for the Mac. I find nothing wrong with that if Lux had and would just be honest about it, but they're not. Lux keeps saying they are a 50/50 PC/Mac company, but they're not. Modo 201 memory issue proves it.

Worse Luxology in their wisdom decided that Modo201 would not utilize the 3Gb switch, which means it needs a minimum of 1Gb and uses a Maximum of the total 2Gb.... It will not see 3Gb in 201. And no 64bit version has been announced.

JML:

Like many cross platform tools, most of the Lux GUI would be Mac and PC compatible, the Win32GUI bar that you can see at the top,
would be the MAC32GUI on the Mac.... It would be one of the few parts of the code, where changes are made between Windows and Mac. But i don't think it's anything unusual or unoptimized.

But maybe i do misunderstand you, as i really am having one of those days, where i should just learn to stay in bed. :)

JML
06-04-2006, 05:56 PM
Worse Luxology in their wisdom decided that Modo201 would not utilize the 3Gb switch, which means it needs a minimum of 1Gb and uses a Maximum of the total 2Gb.... It will not see 3Gb in 201. And no 64bit version has been announced.
JML:
Like many cross platform tools, most of the Lux GUI would be Mac and PC compatible, the Win32GUI bar that you can see at the top,
would be the MAC32GUI on the Mac.... It would be one of the few parts of the code, where changes are made between Windows and Mac. But i don't think it's anything unusual or unoptimized.
But maybe i do misunderstand you, as i really am having one of those days, where i should just learn to stay in bed. :)

I think you understood what I said..
I don't know.. it just look like they did it in a hurry.. (pc version)
those memory limitation kind of proves that too...

The ripper
06-04-2006, 06:22 PM
do you see the window bar on top of modo ?

this make it look like it's a bad port to windows.

if they would spend an equal amount of time on the window version,
they could have had modo go full screen like in LW, instead of having that
on top of their interface.

that exact same issue, remindes me of the window version of electric image (EI6.5) which is plain horrible. (on osx it's much better, but on windows it's just unusable)

http://www.tkio.net/TopMenu_000.mov

That's the only post I'm going to do here as after reading this thread, I saw so many stupid comments that I'm not really interesting. What I'd like to say though is that... before talking about a piece of software, I think people should know what they're talking about. I used Lightwave for more than 10 years and Modo is the best thing that could happen to me.

Jacques.

Captain Obvious
06-04-2006, 07:39 PM
do you see the window bar on top of modo ?

this make it look like it's a bad port to windows.

if they would spend an equal amount of time on the window version,
they could have had modo go full screen like in LW, instead of having that
on top of their interface.

that exact same issue, remindes me of the window version of electric image (EI6.5) which is plain horrible. (on osx it's much better, but on windows it's just unusable)
You know, you COULD make your own user interface and do away with the menu bar alltogether... modo's interface is great that way. ;)





I did not mean that it's ugly,

I meant that it look like they took the code for osx, change 1 or 2 fix there and there and voila the window version, so pretty much an emulation
of the osx version unoptimize for windows.
[Comment on personality removed by the moderators] modo uses its own user interface. It does not look one bit like a Mac OS X application, OR a Windows application. To be perfectly honest, the only difference between the Mac and Windows versions is that the Mac version has the menu bar at the top of the display and the Windows version at the top of the window... Have you ever run Cinema 4D on the Mac? It uses a menu bar in the window! Horrible!







Yes the 1 Gig memory requirement for Modo 201 is too much of a jump from the 500 meg required for modo 102/103. Modo 201 needs 1 Gig or it will not launch. Window 2K/XP only alots 2 Gig to each program unless you use the 3 Gig switch. If you use the 3 Gig switch then 2K/XP will only use 3 Gig and ignores anything above that.

Modo 201's 32 bit memory is geared for the Mac. I find nothing wrong with that if Lux had and would just be honest about it, but they're not. Lux keeps saying they are a 50/50 PC/Mac company, but they're not. Modo 201 memory issue proves it.
Oh, get a clue. I'm currently rendering something in modo (only 20k polygons, but still), and it uses 130 megs of RAM out of 1.25 gigabytes. That's not really too bad, I think. Can't launch with less than a gigabyte? Nonsense! Have you actually run 201?

And no, it is NOT "geared for the Mac." Is it Luxology's fault that 32-bit Window's memory management is horrible and can't use more than 2 gigs of RAM?




Sheeesh. You people need to put things into perspective. You can happily use both applications, and nobody will mind it. modo is a great application, and I like it a lot. But it still has issues, mind you, and nobody's claimed otherwise! Lightwave has a number of advantages over modo, like oh I don't know, animation! But modo has some advantages over Lightwave as well. But the thing you need to realize is that you don't switch 3D app; you add more apps to your workflow!

JML
06-04-2006, 07:55 PM
[edited] modo uses its own user interface. It does not look one bit like a Mac OS X application, OR a Windows application. To be perfectly honest, the only difference between the Mac and Windows versions is that the Mac version has the menu bar at the top of the display and the Windows version at the top of the window... Have you ever run Cinema 4D on the Mac? It uses a menu bar in the window! Horrible!


[Comment on personality removed by the moderators]

what I meant is that it look like they took the modo code under osx, then changed a few things to make it work on windows.
did you use it under windows ? or only osx?


And no, it is NOT "geared for the Mac." Is it Luxology's fault that 32-bit Window's memory management is horrible and can't use more than 2 gigs of RAM?
just use the 3gb switch.




anyway, I will try the demo when it's available to see for myself.

Captain Obvious
06-04-2006, 08:06 PM
quote removed by the moderators
I am a fanboy. A fanboy of sensibility and logic. ;) In case you haven't understood it yet, I still like Lightwave! There are just a lot of things I like better in modo 201, for the things I use it for.





what I meant is that it look like they took the modo code under osx, then changed a few things to make it work on windows.
Well, you're wrong. I've used it on both OS X and Windows, and I barely noticed a difference. The entire app is built using their own set of cross-platform frameworks, so the differences are likely to be minimal.

amorano
06-04-2006, 09:34 PM
http://www.tkio.net/TopMenu_000.mov

That's the only post I'm going to do here as after reading this thread, I saw so many stupid comments that I'm not really interesting. What I'd like to say though is that... before talking about a piece of software, I think people should know what they're talking about. I used Lightwave for more than 10 years and Modo is the best thing that could happen to me.

Jacques.

QFT.

And I have used LW for seven(7) years, and I agree with the above.

SplineGod
06-04-2006, 11:09 PM
Ive used LW for longer then its been called LW. It works great for me.
As with any application personal mileage may vary. :)

JML
06-04-2006, 11:20 PM
Ive used LW for longer then its been called LW. It works great for me.
As with any application personal mileage may vary. :)

I agree with the above

:agree:

frantbk
06-05-2006, 05:42 AM
You know, you COULD make your own user interface and do away with the menu bar alltogether... modo's interface is great that way. ;)

I've run Modo 103 without the menu bar. Modo did not work well. Modo screwed up with certain function grayed out that required clicking on the function four-five times to activate it. Modo grabbed part of the LW interface and combined it with the simple default layout requiring me to delete the config.file to clean up modo, and I had to remove the LW GUI to keep modo from being stupid again. What people are reporting is that the modo 201 has the same problem as 103.

Oh, get a clue. I'm currently rendering something in modo (only 20k polygons, but still), and it uses 130 megs of RAM out of 1.25 gigabytes. That's not really too bad, I think. Can't launch with less than a gigabyte? Nonsense! Have you actually run 201?

Are you running modo 201 with 500 megs of memory? If not then you need to drop you system down to 500 megs and get back to use about how well modo 201 runs without the minumim of 1 Gig, which is listed in Lux's tech spec sheet at their web site.

And no, it is NOT "geared for the Mac." Is it Luxology's fault that 32-bit Window's memory management is horrible and can't use more than 2 gigs of RAM?

Don't blame windows for Lux's goofy thinking. Lux knows what is required to be compatible with the windows environment so the fault is squarely on Lux's for gearing modo 201 memory to the Mac's 32/64 hibred memory system. Luxology chose not to follow Microsoft specs therefore Lux's is at fault not Microsoft.

Yog
06-05-2006, 06:29 AM
Modo 201 needs 1 Gig or it will not launch. ****, someone must have been sneaking extra memory into one of my boxes. Just the other day I was rendering 5 million polys in Modo on a Pc box that only had 512Mb RAM with no problem at all.

The only other thing I can think of is that Frantbk is making baseless and inaccurate claims ..... Nah, can't be that :D

mattclary
06-05-2006, 08:19 AM
Modo 201 needs 1 Gig or it will not launch.

I have never used 201, but this statement sounds like arse biscuits to me.

Captain Obvious
06-05-2006, 08:22 AM
Don't blame windows for Lux's goofy thinking. Lux knows what is required to be compatible with the windows environment so the fault is squarely on Lux's for gearing modo 201 memory to the Mac's 32/64 hibred memory system. Luxology chose not to follow Microsoft specs therefore Lux's is at fault not Microsoft.
You fail to understand one thing: they didn't gear it towards Mac OS X! Make an application in Xcode, and hit compile, and it will automatically be able to take advantage of the operating system's memory management. You don't have to actually do anything to enable it to take advantage of as much as four gigabytes of RAM. This is not how it works on Windows.

And modo for Mac does NOT use "the Mac's 32/64 hybrid memory system."

frantbk
06-05-2006, 08:23 AM
:screwy: If I'm making a basless claim it came from Luxology's tech spec sheet at their website. Look at Lux's tech spec and see what the minumin is. They state 1 Gig. So if I'm wrong it is because Luxology is wrong about their minumim requirements. Is 1 Gig the recommend? and 500 meg the minumim? Why don't they state that at their website?

So your running modo 201 on 512 megs of memory, Ok! so you know more about modo 201 capabilities then the people building and writing the spec for Luxology's product.:screwy:

If the company doesn't know what is needed as a minumim then what good is the tech spec sheet? :screwy:

frantbk
06-05-2006, 08:30 AM
You fail to understand one thing: they didn't gear it towards Mac OS X! Make an application in Xcode, and hit compile, and it will automatically be able to take advantage of the operating system's memory management. You don't have to actually do anything to enable it to take advantage of as much as four gigabytes of RAM. This is not how it works on Windows.

And modo for Mac does NOT use "the Mac's 32/64 hybrid memory system."


THe last time I check you stated at that other forum that the last PC you used was a 377 MHz Pentium. Unless things have changed you currently using a Mac,... am I right? SO all of the post prior to you by PC users has nothing to do with the reality of running modo 201 on win2K/XP. These guy's have no idea what they're doing and their statements are just FALSE, FALSE

You don't really expect anyone here to believe that do you? If you are using a Mac to run modo 201 and they're running on windows who should I believe,... not you.

duke
06-05-2006, 08:44 AM
I ran 103 and am running 201 on XP32, and I'm not having any problems whatsoever. What's with the gnashing teeth in this thread?

Lightwolf
06-05-2006, 09:05 AM
This is not how it works on Windows.

True, there you tell the linker to use the /LARGEADRESSAWARE option and hit compile. It is different... but not really harder ;)

Edit: BTW, I've seen both LW and modo 201 go beyond 2GB on a PC...

Cheers,
Mike

Captain Obvious
06-05-2006, 09:15 AM
:screwy: If I'm making a basless claim it came from Luxology's tech spec sheet at their website. Look at Lux's tech spec and see what the minumin is. They state 1 Gig. So if I'm wrong it is because Luxology is wrong about their minumim requirements. Is 1 Gig the recommend? and 500 meg the minumim? Why don't they state that at their website?
According to one of the modo developers (I think it was Arnie), modo has no lower limit for RAM. It will never say " sorry, you don't have enough RAM" even if you try to run it with 64 megs. It will just get horribly slow. The reason they say "minimum 1GB of RAM" is probably just a get-out-of-jail free card, so to speak.





THe last time I check you stated at that other forum that the last PC you used was a 377 MHz Pentium. Unless things have changed you currently using a Mac,... am I right?
I have a 733MHz Pentium 3 PC, but it's been out-of-order for a while. I've never run modo on it. I've run it on a friend's AthlonXP (with WinXP) system, though.

Normally, I use a Mac. But I have run modo on a PC, as well. I had some issues with the svorak keyboard layout, but the actual app worked just as well as it does on Mac OS X.





True, there you tell the linker to use the /LARGEADRESSAWARE option and hit compile. It is different... but not really harder ;)
I know it's not very hard, but it's still one more variable to bug test, probably... At least that's what the developers said. The 3 gigabyte switch is coming in 202 or whatever.

Lightwolf
06-05-2006, 09:24 AM
I know it's not very hard, but it's still one more variable to bug test, probably... At least that's what the developers said. The 3 gigabyte switch is coming in 202 or whatever.
Well, in that case blame the devs for not using it from the start... it has been there for years...

Cheers,
Mike

frantbk
06-05-2006, 09:32 AM
According to one of the modo developers (I think it was Arnie), modo has no lower limit for RAM. It will never say " sorry, you don't have enough RAM" even if you try to run it with 64 megs. It will just get horribly slow. The reason they say "minimum 1GB of RAM" is probably just a get-out-of-jail free card, so to speak.

You've hit the nail squarely on the head. The caveat (warning) is that what can you trust from Luxology? What good is a tech spec sheet if doesn't have any real informational value. If the memory requirement isn't real then what else isn't real on the tech spec sheet? Caveat emptor (let the buyer beware).

The 3 gigabyte switch is coming in 202 or whatever.

Modo 201 has been on the market now 13 days, About seven days after modo's release the majority of you have been posting your thoughts on your expectation and desires of what you want to see in the 202 patch. What does that tell the person not invested in modo about the product and the companies ability to produce a quality product?

7 days after release and it needs a patch, and thats after 9 months of development and 4.5 months of Friday update about modo and how well it was in beta testing. What was the point of the beta testing if it already needs a patch 7 days after release?

phil lawson
06-05-2006, 09:44 AM
No different than any 3D software that hits the market be it 3dsmax, xsi, LW, modo...sorry, thats not really a smart argument you give.

Yog
06-05-2006, 10:07 AM
Modo 201 has been on the market now 13 days, About seven days after modo's release the majority of you have been posting your thoughts on your expectation and desires of what you want to see in the 202 patch. What does that tell the person not invested in modo about the product and the companies ability to produce a quality product??
I don't think anyone who has used Lightwave for any length of time would use this argument, people in glass houses and all that. Both the LW7.x and LW8.x cycles needed patches, sometimes needing patches to fix patches.

Because Modo (like all other software) isn't a perfect program, there are genuine critisiums that could be levelled at it. However I think you are diluting your own aguments by making them so inaccurate and missinformed :stumped:

Captain Obvious
06-05-2006, 10:12 AM
So, how's that improved character animation in LW9? ;)

Of course 201 "needs" a patch. There are plenty of things I want to improve. But that does NOT mean that 201 itself is useless! When LW9 is finally released, I'm sure there will be plenty of people who'll ask for improvements to certain features immediately.

Panikos
06-05-2006, 08:11 PM
I've never stopped asking for more, in all apps I am using :)

frantbk
06-05-2006, 08:38 PM
No different than any 3D software that hits the market be it 3dsmax, xsi, LW, modo...sorry, thats not really a smart argument you give.


Softimage XSI 5 was release at the end of August 2005. Five point one was release four-six months later. Lightwave ( has yet to be release so I don't know if it needs a patch yet. 3DMax, did it have a patch seven days after its release? I don't think it did. Modo has had 9 months of development, 4.5 months of Friday updates and 7 day after it is release you need a patch? The majority of you haven't had enough time on modo that you should need a patch.

Your level of expectatikon is set so low that the modo crowd doesn't even know what should be a reasonable amount of time before a patch is needed. This poor horse broke its leg coming out of the gate and you and the others think thats ok!

frantbk
06-05-2006, 08:42 PM
I don't think anyone who has used Lightwave for any length of time would use this argument, people in glass houses and all that. Both the LW7.x and LW8.x cycles needed patches, sometimes needing patches to fix patches.

Because Modo (like all other software) isn't a perfect program, there are genuine critisiums that could be levelled at it. However I think you are diluting your own aguments by making them so inaccurate and missinformed :stumped:

The humor in this is that both of those product you talk about were produced by the Luxology team. That is one caveat. you've just hit the nail on the head about who is to blame for the cycels of needed patches for lightwave. The same guy giving you modo 201 gave you lightwave 7-8:thumbsup:

Panikos
06-05-2006, 08:45 PM
The last line of code written by Lux team in LW was in LW7.0 (probably a couple of lines more and that was it).

frantbk
06-05-2006, 08:46 PM
So, how's that improved character animation in LW9? ;)

Of course 201 "needs" a patch. There are plenty of things I want to improve. But that does NOT mean that 201 itself is useless! When LW9 is finally released, I'm sure there will be plenty of people who'll ask for improvements to certain features immediately.

Luxology hasn't state publicly that modo 301 is delayed because of 201. You're one and half months away from Siggraph 2006. Modo 201 was designed to be replaced by modo 301 and you want Lux to waste time fixing 201? Not only did Lux lose focus on modo 201, but the modo 201 crowd has lost focus on the big picture nad Lux's roadmap. You want Lux to fix a product that will be scrapped with the release of 301, and you're the fanboy of commonsense and logic?:D

Panikos
06-05-2006, 08:59 PM
frankbk, you are a great amusement believe me :)