PDA

View Full Version : Layout and Modeler Seperate?



ShawnStovall
06-15-2006, 09:59 AM
I posted this because I know that some people have jobs in witch they only model or animate. I thought that it might be better for their wallets if they would could only buy the part of LightWave they needed.

mattclary
06-15-2006, 10:04 AM
First of all, I am only a hobbyist. I have never made a dime with LightWave. $799 (or whatver the going price is for LW), is really not THAT much money. Plus, if you start allowing the seperation, it might cut into NewTek's profit. I don't know about you, but I want newTek to be around for a while, and I want them to be able to afford top-notch employees.

As to seperate or together, don't really care as long as the interface stays close to what it is currently.

ShawnStovall
06-15-2006, 10:21 AM
The "I want..." options are the ones you would by if they were separate.

oDDity
06-15-2006, 10:31 AM
Certainly I only model, texture and render with it, so that would suit me fine.

Signal to Noise
06-15-2006, 10:48 AM
Keep it the way it is. Eventually you're going to need on or the other even if all you do is model or animate. It's better to have it readily available than wasting a day to place an order in for the other half and wait for a license key.

walfridson
06-15-2006, 10:58 AM
Same exe, but still seperate... Modeller button changes meny/keyboard layout

Pavlov
06-15-2006, 11:09 AM
I voted the wrong one; i sohuld have voted NO, instead i voted "Yes i want layout"

Paolo

t4d
06-15-2006, 09:00 PM
I was a fan of Modeler layout as different Apps
XSI shown me the joy of having it all together BUT we still need modeler in it's own room so to speak eg- press a button have the modeler interface

we need it together because ther are co many cool modeling type thing that are cool to animate !!

evenflcw
06-16-2006, 02:21 AM
Ultimatly, I want everything accessible from one enviroment but the interface to be flexible and customizable enough to allow us to mimic a Modeler and Layout-like enviroment, a combination or other. Start each enviroment from the same exe but use different switches that point to different configuration files (you should obviously also be able to switch interface from within the application itself).

DiedonD
06-16-2006, 03:02 AM
I would like Layout to be a "space" button key away from Modeler, and vice werse. So to anwswer your question that would be "If its Only as an alternative to buying both, then maybe"

I think Maya has something like that, its not a bad idea when you think about it. Also Ive heard that 3dmax has something like bodypaint already installed and included, correct me if Im wrong. If that is the case, then what the heck is NewTek waiting for not doing the same. Instead of going through all these UV-s, and stuff, you can directly paint your character on body paint.

hrgiger
06-16-2006, 03:32 AM
Ok, I hope in an industry with an average of $1500+ per seat of a software package, we're not going to start looking at even more ways of reducing the cost of Lightwave. $800. It's the deal of a lifetime.

I can just see it now...Instead of giving us a free AutoCad or a free Vue with our upgrade.... "If you buy Layout before July 15th, get a free copy of modeler!". (Is there a booooo smiley?)

And just in case there was any ambiguity from my commnets about what I voted, that would be a no.

Signal to Noise
06-16-2006, 08:26 AM
...Instead of giving us a free AutoCad....


Ooh! Free AutoCAD would be sweet! :thumbsup:

(unless you meant LWCAD, which isn't AutoCAD)

hrgiger
06-16-2006, 08:58 AM
Ooh! Free AutoCAD would be sweet! :thumbsup:

(unless you meant LWCAD, which isn't AutoCAD)


Oops. That should have been LWCAD. Just a temporary moment of :screwy:

mattclary
06-16-2006, 09:15 AM
temporary

mmmmmm hmmmmm.... ;)

Nemoid
06-18-2006, 02:37 AM
I'm all for integration modeler+layout with different modes (UI layouts) :

for example , BTW

modeler
and layout.

then, mixed layouts created by the user too. also would be awesome to have the possibility to duplicate buttons, (even in the same UI) so that we could find some commands in both UI layouts.:)

in this way we'll have the possibility, for example to use a timeline in modeler or modelling tols in layout etc etc

as time passes i do hope we go towards a tighter integration, also because in that way, the toolset will be actually one, and Layout and modeler will be nothing more than UI layouts: the way to show user the LW tools. :)

ShawnStovall
06-18-2006, 11:45 AM
That would be cool!

Skinner3D
06-18-2006, 12:46 PM
I definately prefer to keep them as separate exe's, unless I am missing something really obvious.:D What is the difference between hitting F12 and space? I have worked with Maya, and I can not stand the fact that you model in the scene building window.

TheDude
06-18-2006, 07:38 PM
When peeps say they'd prefer Layout and Modeler to remain seperate I can only assume they've never used an intergrated package before or never hit F12 only to find Layout, Modeler or both crash (it happens to me at least once a day).
As others have said LW is not expensive even compared to some "Modeler only" packages on the market and most of them are trying to intergate animation and rendering....roll on a fully intergrated LW would be my two pennies.

SCS5
06-19-2006, 04:52 AM
I think that the people that want to keep them separate don't understand how much more powerful integration would make Lightwave. First off, they will be separate! What will happen is that hopefully all the tools you can use for modeling will be available to use in layout to Animate With!! This means NO MORE JUMPING BACK & FORTH BETWEEN MODELER & LAYOUT TO MAKE SIMPLE CHANGES!!! Want to do a drag net to have a muscle grow? Drag the points, key-frame it, and move on! Animated booleans? Have models build themselves?, Etc. Layout would finally be a real animation tool! How much faster could the work-flow be?:thumbsup:

Pavlov
06-19-2006, 05:02 AM
The advantages of an unified environment are SO obvious that it's not worth talking about them- btw i did several times already ;)
A thing which would piss me off is if NT keeps modules separate in order to meet some user's hypotetical needs; objective improvements must be pursued despite some user's rants, they will learn and admit it is better in a short time.
Imho separated modules are the main cause of LW's problems, and the faster we get rid of modules, the better ;)

Paolo

TheDude
06-19-2006, 05:23 AM
Imho separated modules are the main cause of LW's problems, and the faster we get rid of modules, the better ;)

Paolo
:agree:

SP00
06-19-2006, 07:21 AM
I have a dual monitor setup and i have used 3D max extensively over the last few months. Right now, I still prefer modeler and Layout to be seperate. I feel the max has a bunch of tool created just to keep modeling managable, but LW modeler keeps everything related to modeling self contain in its own space. This just makes life less complicated IMO. Also since I have a dual monitor setup, I just keep modeler(screen 1) open with it floating panels(screen 2) on the other screen and Layout(screen 2) open with its floating panel(screen 1) on the other screen. When I switch between apps, their corresponding floating panels come up front. This makes life a little easier if you have that setup. With that all said, i am all for integration only if:

1) If they Integrate Modeler and Layout together, keep the seperate interfaces. A person will switch between the 2 UI with the F12 key. I really hope they don't try to cram all of Modelers tools into Layout.
2) Keep either Modeler or Layout a floating panel that can be maximized. So that people will dual monitors can still take advantage of keeping modeler on one screen and layout on the other.
3) Make everything built on floating panels that can be dockable.

I guess basically, what I like to see is 1 single app that acts like two. If they can't do that, I will be just happy if they make the F12 key switch more reliably.

t4d
06-19-2006, 07:41 AM
well it depend on what single app you have used
I uses XSI Ess and Well it works I found the modeling odd as first
Used LW and Modo but the more i uses it, the more used to it you get
PLus XSi has rooms in the interface/menu's
Modeling, animation, sim and render, so is sort of 4 apps compaired to LW 2

anyway the main reason to bring them together is Animating modeling to tools features etc.

Pavlov
06-19-2006, 07:41 AM
hi,

1-2 Even unifying modules, Modeling tools will still have their independency (even now there's a single "Model" Tab in layout, in the future there could be all Modeler's tab in layout). Maybe Hub could still exhist to link separate LW sessions.
This could help cooperative work AND let multimonitor people like you, in fact you could use two sessions of LW and synch them to model in one and render on the other.

3 - agree

Paolo

Nemoid
06-19-2006, 07:58 AM
If you guys take a look to apps like XSI or C4D you can clearly see the benefit of having unified toolset.because its more a matter of unification, integration of modelling toolset plus layout toolset (rigging, scene managing, animation, displacement, dynamics etc)

sure that having the app organized into a modeler compartment and an animation /rendering one is the best way to keep workflow organized and efficient, tho, the toolset could be one, and memory management, texture loading either.

Hitting F12 you currently switch to the other app, Lw or Modeler in that case, and this is managed trough a third app, the Hub.
This is not bad, but into a well done integrated version of the app, you would get no problems in this data exchange, just because the app is actually one.

Hub sometimes leads to problems due to TCP/IP protocol interfering with it too.Also Modeler and Layout are not always perfectly sinchronized.

PixelDust
06-19-2006, 08:14 AM
In Hash Animation:Master, modeling and animation are part of the same program, but they are done in separate windows or modes. This may be because the program started out as separate programs similar to LW, then merged around version 5 or so.

In the Choreography (animation) window, you can still go into a modeling mode where you can adjust points while animating.

Flattening out meshes is done in a separate window, and creating joint deformations (smartskin) and reusable actions in still another. Yet they are all part of the same program.

Maybe this "hybrid" unification could satisfy both types of users. Just a thought... :)

Nemoid
06-20-2006, 02:14 AM
Sure. IMO , the current way to work, modelling at one side, and rigging /animation/render into another side is good and has a linear process letting you focus on the necessary things one step at a time.

but clearly, you could have that with 2 compartments within the same program, and with a good level of flexibility in the UI, some user could also benefit from mixed layouts :

so for example : wanna animate modelling ?
simple, evoke the timeline in your modelling environment so that you can keyframe geometry changements.
or evoke modelling tools in your scene environment.

are you animating? modelling toolset could be great to correct some little deformations on the fly (i'm not saying the rig can be crap , only talking about a finer level allowing you to bring your deformations to the next level)

wanna change light setup into your modelling compartment?

you can, because actually its the same of scene building showed in a different way.

do some kinda rigging could benefit you while modelling? you can rig your geometry and use this as a method too, if u like...

there could be tons of examples better thanthe ones i made, BTW.

however the great difefernce is : through full integration, u can finally choose the way you want to work, and also streamline things like having to paint wiight maps in modeler and apply them in layout, assigning materials to surfaces in modeler to have em in layout later, building path curves in modeler and then be able to make your object follow them in layout, and all steps that necesarily require a switch between 2 different apps.

SCS5
06-20-2006, 04:17 AM
Let me see.....................................In Layout, after I've started an animation, I want to add new geometry and animate it. Go to Modeler, new layer,add the geometry, name a morph target, sculpt the model, save the changes, synchronize Layout, go to Layout, new layer's not there! Go to 1st layer in model, go to replace object, load object, use morph mixer, adjust sliders, changes not quite what I want.....Start over!.... Two separate apps., two separate modules, Animation's crippled, work-flow's slow & cumbersome, back n forth between two apps. all the time. :thumbsdow

One single app. with unified tools in Modeler & Layout.
(remember, you'll still have 2 separate "environments" to work in if you want to)
Got an new idea after you've started to animate?
Want to add new geometry and animate it? In Layout, Add the geometry, key-frame it, sculpt it, key-frame it and move on.:thumbsup:

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm??:screwy:

TheDude
06-20-2006, 04:28 AM
I don't remember the "Separatists" complaining when the ability to change surfaces was intergrated into layout...no one saw that as a bad thing. NT have already said they're planning to intergrate Modeler and Layout, that's because they know it's the only way to go. Once the doubters try it, they won't want to go back.

grafikimon
06-20-2006, 03:16 PM
As mentioned Hash did it right. An single app but...

1 workspace for texturing
1 for layout
1 for modeling
1 for morphs and bone setup

LW has so many tools that it needs to keep everything organized by workspaces.

I should add that all of it updates instantly as I move between workspaces.

I try to make an animation and the deformation is bad I click over to the model workspace spinquad some polys to fix the deformation, then hope over to the morph workspace to make a join morph apply it and test it a little before jumping back to the layout workspace to check it out and continue working.

Nemoid
06-21-2006, 12:14 AM
Yep it is a matter of organization of a common toolset.

once all tools are in the same base environment,and can work nicely together, you can organize them like you want.

so Nt, could also mantain the current organization, as default, and give users the possibility to create new ones. old fashioned users could work as they always made and feel at home-but with possibility to go beyond as needed.

an organization in compartments as in hash is good, to keep workflow linear and efficient letting you focus in modelling at first, then UV/texturing, then rigging, lighting, animating, render.
Then if the UI is flexible every user could choose his way to work, starting from old fashioned way (the current one) and going towards other kinda UI layouts.

some people cannot realize the possibilities of an integrated environment unless they haven't it under their hands , but i'm ready to bet that once they can work with something similar they will like it !!. :lwicon:

SCS5
06-21-2006, 05:25 PM
some people cannot realize the possibilities of an integrated environment unless they haven't it under their hands , but i'm ready to bet that once they can work with something similar they will like it !!. :lwicon:


Like it?..........No........They will LOVE IT!!!:thumbsup:

nerdyguy227
06-25-2006, 08:04 PM
havent read all the posts here but I think I have an idea I'd like to know how many other people like it

What if they were the same app but you switch between the two modes. Also you can render in modeler and when rendering the final output you can "deactivate" the modeling portion- freeing up ram from all the undo's saved and open objects. And/or you could export an exictutible that will just render. (gives the settings and some network options etc. then takes embedded scene data and renders an output)

When working on a scene you can switch into the modeling mode and it singles the object with the ability to update in the scene in realtime and swap between them.

This I think is the direction I'd most prefer. Could be the big step in lw 10. Any thoughts?

stone
06-26-2006, 01:28 AM
havent read all the posts here but I think I have an idea I'd like to know how many other people like it

What if they were the same app but you switch between the two modes. Also you can render in modeler and when rendering the final output you can "deactivate" the modeling portion- freeing up ram from all the undo's saved and open objects. And/or you could export an exictutible that will just render. (gives the settings and some network options etc. then takes embedded scene data and renders an output)

When working on a scene you can switch into the modeling mode and it singles the object with the ability to update in the scene in realtime and swap between them.

This I think is the direction I'd most prefer. Could be the big step in lw 10. Any thoughts?

this is the same thing nemoid and others are suggesting, and the same thing that xsi does - hit f12 and the menues/gui layout switches the toolset of that arnt shared between the modes.

if you add enough customization to the menus, old time users can have it work as it currently does, like a complete seperate app, while others can integrate the two modes more seemlessly.

/stone

nerdyguy227
06-26-2006, 09:52 AM
exactly

-FP-
06-26-2006, 09:54 AM
The poll options above don't seem clear to me, so I didn't vote.

I want Modeler and Lightwave to remain separate for as long as I use Lightwave. I don't want the programs integrated - I even disable the hub because it's too easy to mess things up. Several times, in Modeler, I have made fatal mistakes in surfacing or altering a model, then saved and closed the object before I realized it. Because I had an earlier version open in Layout, I could simply Save All Objects and recover. Likewise with changing objects in Layout, then realizing I'd made a mistake. I still have an intact object in Modeler to save and fix my mistake. The hub - and total integration of the programs - simply make it easier for mistakes to propagate unrecoverably - for the way I work, anyway.

I've used integrated programs - trueSpace and XSI. XSI is excellent, trueSpace is garbage, but neither program felt as "right" to me as Lightwave does.

It doesn't matter if the apps are integrated, as long as I can choose to work the "old" way - although I'd hate to give up the protection from mistakes the current setup gives me. I back up incrementally and frequently, but sometimes the best work is done over a four-minute period between saves, and losing even that can be painful.

Stooch
06-26-2006, 09:59 AM
havent read all the posts here but I think I have an idea I'd like to know how many other people like it

What if they were the same app but you switch between the two modes. Also you can render in modeler and when rendering the final output you can "deactivate" the modeling portion- freeing up ram from all the undo's saved and open objects. And/or you could export an exictutible that will just render. (gives the settings and some network options etc. then takes embedded scene data and renders an output)

When working on a scene you can switch into the modeling mode and it singles the object with the ability to update in the scene in realtime and swap between them.

This I think is the direction I'd most prefer. Could be the big step in lw 10. Any thoughts?

BRILLIANT! what a great original and thoughtful idea!

NOT, How about this idea: Read the thread before replying lol.

imagine you talking to someone and you go into great detail describing your idea.

then you get interrupted with the other guys idea and he basically rehashes what you just said.... would you find that person rude?

nerdyguy227
06-26-2006, 10:48 AM
I thought other people would have said something similar before me thats why I said in the begining I didnt read the thread. I probably wouldnt find it "rude", just a tad annoying.

At any rate, I guess this means people agree with me- or in better terms I agree with them.

Nemoid
06-27-2006, 12:28 AM
The poll options above don't seem clear to me, so I didn't vote.

I want Modeler and Lightwave to remain separate for as long as I use Lightwave. I don't want the programs integrated - I even disable the hub because it's too easy to mess things up. Several times, in Modeler, I have made fatal mistakes in surfacing or altering a model, then saved and closed the object before I realized it. Because I had an earlier version open in Layout, I could simply Save All Objects and recover. Likewise with changing objects in Layout, then realizing I'd made a mistake. I still have an intact object in Modeler to save and fix my mistake. The hub - and total integration of the programs - simply make it easier for mistakes to propagate unrecoverably - for the way I work, anyway.

I've used integrated programs - trueSpace and XSI. XSI is excellent, trueSpace is garbage, but neither program felt as "right" to me as Lightwave does.

It doesn't matter if the apps are integrated, as long as I can choose to work the "old" way - although I'd hate to give up the protection from mistakes the current setup gives me. I back up incrementally and frequently, but sometimes the best work is done over a four-minute period between saves, and losing even that can be painful.


your point is not a bad one, and i can understand the problem of fixing some errors in your models,BTW But IMO, this is not enough to keep the apps separate. Hub sometimes cause probs and the only way to get rid of this is either work the oooold way, with the apps truely separate and no hub, or total integration with no need for Hub.

as said, there is actually no problem in having all toolset to be common, and a default UI allowing to work like now, but with clearly all the advantages of a common toolset, and the possibility to mix it if you need.

i also think this would push the development of better and more responsive tools, for example for rigging. better bone creation/managing for rigging would allow us to avoid skelegons, for example. at their time, they were created because there was no fast solution to rig a character in layout without having to overhaul the whole bone creation system.

starbase1
06-27-2006, 03:02 AM
For me the biggest problem in the bad old days was only being able to texture in modeller. It led to a lot of bouncing back and forth between the two, (and consequent wobbliness!)

I find the current situation quite good for the way I work.

But I do recently seem to hit memory limits a lot, particularly when using large maps. And I do end up closing down stuff all over the place, so that layout has the maximum available memory.

So with this in mind, (and tongue firmly in cheek), I'd say break it into three. Modeller, layout, and render - thus freeing the maximum memory for the rendering.

Of course, in practice this means I must get the hang of batch rendering on one computer. Is there such a thing as a front end for this to save me typing up DOS style batch files?

Nick

jameswillmott
06-27-2006, 04:47 AM
some people cannot realize the possibilities of an integrated environment unless they haven't it under their hands , but i'm ready to bet that once they can work with something similar they will like it !!. :lwicon:

I've used integrated environments, and I hate them. Separating the apps is not only easier for the developers to code and maintain, but the interfaces are less cluttered and more focussed.

Now if the two apps would share memory for synchronizing objects instead of using the Hub to save and load files all the time, I wouldn't say no. They'd feel more connected without actually becoming one app.

TheDude
06-27-2006, 04:53 AM
Several times, in Modeler, I have made fatal mistakes in surfacing or altering a model, then saved and closed the object before I realized it. Because I had an earlier version open in Layout, I could simply Save All Objects and recover. Likewise with changing objects in Layout, then realizing I'd made a mistake. I still have an intact object in Modeler to save and fix my mistake.

You wouldn't really have those issues if LW had a robust and fully featured undo system or you used a "save versions in case of crash" workflow, one which I've had to adopt. One of the reasons LW has a rubbish undo facility is because Modeler and Layout are seperate. The HUB is barely reliable enough as it is, imagine having to trust it with an undo across several versions of an object and rig.....gawd :stumped:

Intergration...you know it makes sense :thumbsup:

TheDude
06-27-2006, 04:55 AM
Now if the two apps would share memory for synchronizing objects instead of using the Hub to save and load files all the time, I wouldn't say no. They'd feel more connected without actually becoming one app.

Now I'm no programmer......but two modules of code sharing the same memory sounds like a single app to me........ :hey:

stone
06-27-2006, 05:57 AM
I've used integrated environments, and I hate them. Separating the apps is not only easier for the developers to code and maintain,
not true. seperate apps arnt easier to maintain, and actually the risk is that its harder to maintain due to reuse of similar components through several apps. what matters is a well designed and structured code base, but that goes regardless of the application design.


but the interfaces are less cluttered and more focussed.
not true. a properly designed interface can even behave as it was two seperate apps by showing you only the menus and tools you need. forced seperation into multiply executables doesnt solve the problems.

/stone

Matt
06-27-2006, 07:10 AM
Voted yes, but keep the whole package available too, if it opens avenues for more people to buy then it can't be a bad thing.

Regarding the usefulness of one without the other is something I would question. For example if you only had Layout and imported stuff from other packages, unless surface names were imported you would have no way of texturing your model!

masterchief
06-27-2006, 07:32 AM
everything you need right out of the box..... hmmm, seems like a no brainer to me.

that is the way to go, IMHO. do not try to fix it if it is not broken.

regards,
William

TheDude
06-27-2006, 08:21 AM
that is the way to go, IMHO. do not try to fix it if it is not broken.


LW isn't broken at the moment, but it's kinda bent. :D
Has there ever been a piece of intergration in LW that people haven't found useful? Not as far as I know.
Every other major 3D app is intergrated, this is not just coincidence. For that matter so is just about every other app I can think of (would you want to launch a different program to animate in AfterFX??).

NT is simply having to play catch up because of it's orginal platform, the Amiga. There wasn't the memory to run the two apps at the same time like there was on an SGi.
Intergration in LW is happening, like it or not.

SP00
06-27-2006, 06:35 PM
I would really like to see a completely customizable interface where you can save mulitple interfaces (including docking locations and which specialized tool panel to open) into an order list and access them thru the use of the F12 (Next interface) and F11 (Previous interface) button. I think this makes sense in terms of meeting everyone's needs. I can build a Modeling, Texturing, Lighting, Animating, and Special FX interface (which will position and open their respective tools panels) that replicates a production pipeline and switch around using 2 buttons. This will keep the interface feel from clutter for a particular stage of a pipeline and it will also be easier for people to learn the product. Of course Newtek will package a preset interface list to start us off. If the user wants, they can also load up an all in one interface or even the Modeler and Layout classic interface list.

Speedmonk42
06-27-2006, 10:25 PM
Wow did I mistunderstand that poll.

Oops

Nemoid
06-28-2006, 12:00 AM
I would really like to see a completely customizable interface where you can save mulitple interfaces (including docking locations and which specialized tool panel to open) into an order list and access them thru the use of the F12 (Next interface) and F11 (Previous interface) button. I think this makes sense in terms of meeting everyone's needs. I can build a Modeling, Texturing, Lighting, Animating, and Special FX interface (which will position and open their respective tools panels) that replicates a production pipeline and switch around using 2 buttons. This will keep the interface feel from clutter for a particular stage of a pipeline and it will also be easier for people to learn the product. Of course Newtek will package a preset interface list to start us off. If the user wants, they can also load up an all in one interface or even the Modeler and Layout classic interface list.

exactly !!
with an integrated app and a customizable UI, you can streamline your workflow and put tools where you need them.
you can also work like now with modeler and layout separate configuration so that you don't notice too much changements and you don't get mad.
you could also create custom layouts BTW. and this would allow for good, integrated workflow.
for example, when you're rigging you can tweak your weight maps without going back and forth, no need for skelegons, only good bone tools and you can test your rig immediately (huge timesaver). you also could correct shapes in animation using modelling tools (and Lw has great modelling tools that could help you greatly in doing this.

RedBull
06-28-2006, 01:39 AM
I have to admit after using Modo201 and XSI for a while now, along with LW for a long time.
XSI shows the power of what integration can bring, it's the best implentation of integration in comparison to Maya, C4D, Max. IMO.

It also loses some simplicity, and i prefer to still model in Modeler rather than XSI. I'm afraid if Modeler becomes Layout, i will just Model in XSI, or Modo.

Modo also shows the potential of what a customizable interface and general customization can bring, it also shows the potential pit falls of the extra downfalls it adds. You can't have cake and eat it too, and it's the same thing that makes it great, that makes it not so great. IMO.

Maya also shows the pitfalls of the methods of customization.
It becomes bewildering and troublesome, despite it's level of ability.

Integrating Modeler and Layout, will allow extra power from an architecure standpoint, LW has reached a few limits due to being seperate.

However i have no doubt that it also offers a simplicity and and uniqueness
in it's workflow that will likely be lost when you change it's makeup.
It's a really tough to balance the tradeoffs.

I note Hexagon, and Silo, and Wings3D are all seperate Modelers.
I also note on a recent question from a Pixar TD on CGtalk, you can see LW is predominately used by the larger studios for it's Modeling prowess

For years i've argued to keep them seperate, and now i see the full benefits
of integration, yet aren't convinced that we won't lose something important in the process.

I think you need to ask exactly what benefits could be forseen from the integrating? Is it to just join them? or is it to enhance the workflow and potential abilities that integration could offer from a technical and artistic viewpoint for both NT and it's userbase?. Then look exactly what areas
could really benefit the most from the two becoming one.

evenflcw
06-28-2006, 02:47 AM
I would really like to see a completely customizable interface where you can save mulitple interfaces (including docking locations and which specialized tool panel to open) into an order list and access them thru the use of the F12 (Next interface) and F11 (Previous interface) button. I think this makes sense in terms of meeting everyone's needs. I can build a Modeling, Texturing, Lighting, Animating, and Special FX interface (which will position and open their respective tools panels) that replicates a production pipeline and switch around using 2 buttons. This will keep the interface feel from clutter for a particular stage of a pipeline and it will also be easier for people to learn the product. Of course Newtek will package a preset interface list to start us off. If the user wants, they can also load up an all in one interface or even the Modeler and Layout classic interface list.

I don't particularly like the idea of having to cycle through several configs just to get to the one I want. It will take time to load and update the screen everytime you make a switch. It would be better if we could select a particular config directly...

Add the ability to start each config from a command switch and the ability to load a config via lscripts/macros and I'll agree with you. This would allow users to start LW with any configuration (especially good for those that like separation) and allow users to set up their own buttons or dropdownmenus for the installed interface configs (which are simply added as plugins/lscripts; and if they made a new special script/plugin class for this and a special submenu codeword new configs could automatically be added to this menu just like newly added plugins are automatically added to a the Additional submenu in Modeler).

TheDude
06-28-2006, 04:25 AM
I still remember Softimage 3D (the forerunner to XSi).
This app showed how superb an integrated package can be.
You simply pressed F1, F2, F3, F4, for each mode, Model, Texture, Animate, Render. The layout of each was the same but there was a subtle difference in the colour of the menus and each mode felt like a seperate app. You quickly knew what environment you were in just by the colour scheme.
When XSi first came out every Soft3D user hated it's UI because it was very different in workflow and presentation,even tho they had tried to keep the core functionality.
Softimage claimed that although the Soft3D interface was loved by everyone, it's simplicity was choking new features, there wasn't anywhere to easily intergrate them or provide access to the depth of the new stuff.
I think Softimage have spent the last few releases trying to regain the feel of Soft3D, with some success.
This is the issue LW faces, it's apps are simple and (some would say) elegant (everyone seems to love Modeler's feel), however simple won't cut it any more.When you have to rely on plugins to add functionality, you're in trouble because the elegance starts to slip away.
If all you do all day is model and texture, then you won't care about intergrated rigging and animation. The Problem is that once you've finished with a model someone else usually has to do something with it. An intergrated tool makes this so much more straightforward, especially when it turns out something needs changing (of course that NEVER happens....... yeah right...)