View Full Version : Interesting comparrison

09-27-2007, 10:28 PM
Web page comparring 3D aps. Thought some of you would like a look see.


09-27-2007, 10:46 PM
Cinema 4D was five pounds cheaper.

I am switching.

09-27-2007, 11:31 PM
I thought LW was available in Japanese and was able to do simple compositing

09-27-2007, 11:38 PM
They forgot to mention Imagine.


On a serious note I am amazed how far LW has come, 9.3 is a excellent version. Thanx for the link Amurrell.

09-28-2007, 03:12 AM
hmm it says lw not have soft body cloth ? hairs ?

09-28-2007, 04:48 AM
It also says that LW have NURBS and can import .iges files with a plugin. Does anyone know about this iges plugin? I want to try it.
I have MOI and Rhino and it works, but NURBS in LW would be awesome.

09-28-2007, 07:22 AM
Sounds like IGES is a nightmare to implement...
''Like other CAD formats, such as AutoCAD DXF, an IGES file can represent many different types of data, ranging from lines and arcs to the complex geometric solids, such as cylinders and cones known as "constructive solid geometry." IGES is much more complicated than DXF, though--perhaps four times as complex, judging by the sheer number of different geometrical entities. The IGES v4 specification encompasses more than 500 pages.

Because of the format's complexity, it is difficult to implement every possible operation and entity. Most IGES translators or IGES-importing programs describe exactly which IGES entities they support and which they ignore.''

09-28-2007, 09:16 AM
hmm it says lw not have soft body cloth ? hairs ?

read again

about the cloth your're right

09-28-2007, 10:39 AM
Ummm, you can get decent results out of clothFX... It may not be syflex, or maya's new ncloth, but it's still serviceable...

09-28-2007, 01:05 PM
Most of that seems pretty fair, except for their take on the interface.

09-28-2007, 02:40 PM
I think interface is a state of mind, and very subjective.

I would say Lightwave's interface is looking dated, but clean, since it is not cluttered with icons. Pretty buttons do not mean an organized interface. The more 'in your face' an interface is, the more visual distraction there is for your workspace to compete with.

If I had to switch to another app other than Lightwave, it'd be Cinema4D. But that is because I do a lot of design work and it is well known for that (Mograph).

09-30-2007, 09:40 AM
I just thought it was interesting. No matter how many good points you find in one app. there is bound to many poor or bad as well and oddly enough, in some categories where one app. falls short another picks it up.

Either way, I believe its more in the way you use a tool. I know I've seen some pretty awesome stuff around here :).

09-30-2007, 10:09 AM
must say whoever filled in that table is blind dumb and stupid...

xsi fund does not have rigid bodies for a start...so how they are 'excellent' we'll never know....!

character animation tools in lw are weak not 'good'

fbx is years behind in lightwave

1 month to learn cinema but 3+ for all other apps...why's that?...i see a dollup of bias in there...

fluids in xsi fund.....what's the chap sorting to think that?..dumbass!
he seems to throw capabilities of xsi advanced into the fundaentals listing...which is confusing/misleading

texture baking in lightwave is convoluted and painful..

as usual a complete waste of time of a list..just go get the demo's ple versions and have aplay for a real evaluation
as 3d apps are always subjective in their usage as they cover a wide gammut of needs.

09-30-2007, 10:39 AM
Myself, I'm just struggling going through the lack of grammar in the article. Granted, the person may not natively speak english, but is it too much to ask that someone proofread?

09-30-2007, 11:41 AM
I thought it was interresting to see that you NEED Fprime in order to be productive. That may have been true before LW9.2 came along, but I have managed without it before LW9.2 so...

Captain Obvious
09-30-2007, 06:03 PM
Way too simplistic to be of any real use for anyone.

09-30-2007, 10:52 PM
...LW documentation is excellent, according to the site......considering the amount of negative critisism it has received here, i wonder how the documentation looks in other apps.

i liked the comparison charter...but some things were missed completely, as cloth...lw has it, right? :)

all in all, all apps came out positively from the comparison...which to me means that the author was carefull not to sound biased towards one or other direction.

09-30-2007, 10:57 PM
ah...also, whats up with calling lw confusing??..becouse of the text based functions``..lack of simple red-blue circle-box-triangle-black-arrow-crosshair-line-dotted symbols that so perfectly visually explain how the tool in question works, even for the total newbie.

why not have LW's splitted modeller and layout as an argument AGAINST confusion....perhaps he meant that becouse of that, we have double amount of keyboard shortcuts and therefore it is confusing? ;)

09-30-2007, 11:57 PM
Actually, given that these comparisons are always bad, I thought this one was one of the closest (at at least up to date) I've seen ... I think it is not good for a newcomer to choose what to use (PLE's please), but as a current comparison, I'd have difficulty producing somehting better.

Agreed some of the points are a bit random ... and the person seems to love C4D, XSi and Blender. I did not find their summing up of LW too critical, in some points they could have been even harder ...