PDA

View Full Version : Help! Hijacked by Modo!



Pages : [1] 2

starprog
03-28-2008, 06:40 PM
Ok, I can sincerely say I love Newtek Lightwave. Still a rather new user, but the application just seems to fit. However while looking through the forums, something I don?t find much time to do as much as I would like by the way, I ran across a post about motto. So as my curiosity grew, I went to their site, and then I saw it. A modeling, sculpting, painting, uv, in your face feedback 3d application on drugs, and all for $895.00.
I felt like I was high jacked, I ended up spending hours on their site and forums looking for the big gotcha, it doesn?t do that line.
Those hours were set aside for Lightwave, to learn more and watch the outstanding tutorials created by William Vaughan.
Anyways I found my way back here finally to type this cry for help. Does anyone know anything wrong with modo? Can you please tell me the dream of an application having painting, sculpting, modeling, animating and rendering feedback all wrapped up in one application with no additional plug-ins to buy? Please.
I don?t want to go!!! However fast production = more $$$ = me go were money is.
:twak:

Exception
03-28-2008, 06:44 PM
- No real animation. Modo doesn't animate, it just varies static values over time, can move a camera, and can import MDD files from other applications. It has no actual animation capabilities.
- No plugin architecture. This means you can't extend it whatsoever. No LWCAd, no Fprime, No Maxwell, no Kray, no volumedic, HD instance, none of the thousands and thousands of free scripts, great commercial tools or anything.

Other than that I'm sure modo is great. Lw is just covers more terrain and is much more extendable. Modo is more like modeler on steroids with a render engine. Whatever Lightwave Layout does, besides the rendering, modo can't.

DragonFist
03-28-2008, 06:48 PM
To my knowledge, one big gatcha for me, is lack of animation. It will eventually have it and I think I heard word of it recently gaining some animation capabilities, but (and again, I am not a user of modo and may be wrong) it doesn't cover fully animating. It is at least the main reason I haven't put down any bucks on it.

That said, what it does do, it apparently does well. Plenty that rave about it.

starprog
03-28-2008, 06:49 PM
Thank you Exception, thats great to know. Phew! I feel better.

starprog
03-28-2008, 06:51 PM
I sometimes wish lightwave would do the painting thing, could do without the sculpting but the painting would be nice.

Exception
03-28-2008, 06:58 PM
I sometimes wish lightwave would do the painting thing, could do without the sculpting but the painting would be nice.

Yes that would be nice.
You should know that modo is actually built upon modeler, since luxology was formed by former members of Newtek. They continued developing the modeler side, and Newtek went on to develop the Layout side more. It's a touchy subject both on these and on the modo forums.

I am hoping that Lightwave 10 will get major modeler loving. Luxology has shown what can be done on that front, so there are some examples how to do certain things better... and worse.

waly
03-28-2008, 06:59 PM
There is a great software for painting and sculpting and it has great support for lw objects.
and its very cheap, and definitely it worth. Model in lightwave and paint,sculpt in 3d coat. It has a great interface too, you'll learn the software in couple of hours.

http://www.3d-coat.com/

pumeco
03-28-2008, 07:13 PM
My only complaint about Modo so far is it's support service.

I joined their forum under 'pumeco' and then never visited for ages. Later though, I couldn't get in because I'd forgotten my password. I've contected their support no less than four times now, asking them to email me my password. This was spread over a good year, and I'm still waiting.

What's funny is that they have the gore to send me emails tempting me to buy a copy.

UnCommonGrafx
03-28-2008, 07:16 PM
3D-Coat takes care of all of that and more. And at $89.00 is an extraordinary buy.

I even have Zbrush: 3dc get results faster, with less hassle.

Modo has gone far. But they have quite a bit to go. Blender offers more than both...

Matt
03-28-2008, 07:17 PM
I felt like I was high jacked

Luxology do a very good of selling / marketing Modo, as a Modeler / renderer it's very capable, and the images are stunning.

BUT! Aside from the painting and the displacement, you can do everything in LightWave and more.

starprog
03-28-2008, 07:40 PM
Thanks guys, I knew I could count on all of you on the lightwave forums. Thanks so much, I feel much better now. These things are true what you say, I can accomplish so much with lightwave. Oh and thnks waly for the link to 3d coat. It seems like it is going to fill that painting on surface void.

Ĺgrén
03-28-2008, 07:42 PM
Too many Modo tools are in child's shoes. A few good fast tools, but not even functional poly reduction nor tangent space n. maps. It's too primitive for a modeler. The modo trial has taken my money twice, and nerves too.

Well hmm, 895 US dollars, the painting/sculpting tools are okay-ish but you are in trouble with highres meshes. UV display is good but tools produce errors.

hrgiger
03-28-2008, 07:45 PM
I've contected their support no less than four times now, asking them to email me my password. This was spread over a good year, and I'm still waiting.



Someone probably clued them in to your strange feelings about David Hasselhoff. I wouldn't return your emails either after that.

zapper1998
03-28-2008, 07:54 PM
How long have You Had LightWave ??
:caffeine:
LightWave + Modo = Powerful Combination ... :newtek:

I do not have Modo, I tried there Demo 30 day thingy, was not to impressed with it....Of course the 30 day thingy was to short, out of the 30 day trial I was able to go 3 or 4 days with it, it should be like a 30 day [equivalent of 30 days= 720 hours Timed [IMHO]]

Oh Well Modo lost....Might try it again... Maybe

I said LightWave First :lightwave Then Modo

nemac4
03-28-2008, 08:19 PM
I use both Lightwave and modo at work as well as many other apps.
Most of the time, I use lightwave. Modo just doesn't cut it for me yet.
Only 32 bit. Very limited animation.
Lightwave is really a great choice is you have to pick just one application.

Captain Obvious
03-28-2008, 08:21 PM
Yes that would be nice.
You should know that modo is actually built upon modeler, since luxology was formed by former members of Newtek. They continued developing the modeler side, and Newtek went on to develop the Layout side more. It's a touchy subject both on these and on the modo forums.
It is indeed a touchy subject, but the idea that modo is somehow based on Modeler is downright preposterous. Technologically, they're completely different, and they probably don't share a single line of code. Since modo is developed by the same people who made Layout and Modeler, they obviously have a lot of similarities, but you cannot honestly claim that modo was built upon Modeler.

As for modo "versus" Lightwave: modo is a brilliant modeler. It's gotten to the point where I find myself more or less unable to model in Modeler because I'm so spoiled by modo. However, modeling is 90 % of what I use modo for. It does scene layout, rendering and very basic animation, but there are a lot of things that modo simply does not do. Lightwave does everything, pretty much. I would argue that there are a lot of things Lightwave doesn't do very well, but it just covers more bases than modo could hope of doing for at least another year or two. Lightwave is a full studio application, and one of the best-value ones out there if you ask me. modo isn't a full studio application. If you need a full studio application, don't buy modo instead of Lightwave. Buy just Lightwave, or both if you can afford it (since modo is, quite frankly, way better at modeling).

IMI
03-28-2008, 08:36 PM
modo 301 does one thing LW simply can't: displacement sculpting along the lines of ZBrush. Well, nowhere as quickly as ZB, and with a far more limited toolset, but you can't do that at all in LW.
Sculpting something in ZB and exporting the displacement map to apply to a model in Layout can get tedious and have unpredictable results. It can be done, but it's not the simplest process around. In modo you can sculpt on a model and then make a very high quality render of it and it looks just like what you sculpted.

It's been pointed out a thousand times before that modo and LW make great companions - what modeler lacks, modo has and vice versa, plus the .lwo import/export into/from modo is really quite good. It would be cool to see an exchange plugin between modo and modeler to eliminate the import/export....
Actually, modo is rapidly outpacing Modeler in the modeling department - it has so many things which make modeling so much easier, not the least of which being more tool integration.

But of course, modo is a long way from being able to compete with LW as a character animation tool. There are, however some really exceptionally nice still renders and product shots out there done with modo alone.

Any LW user who really likes Modeler and can afford to add modo ought to do so. They do make a beautiful couple. :)

IMI
03-28-2008, 09:05 PM
I should clarify that modo does both normal displacement as well as vector displacement.
Vector displacement of course allowing one to sculpt not only along the normals, but in all three axes as well.
If you have a good Wacom tablet - at least an Intuos 2 or 3, vector displacement sculpting can become seriously addictive in modo 301, making for the ability to create complex details on your model which are extremely difficult or time consuming in standard modeling, and you can also "freeze" the displacement into a polygonal mesh at any sub-d level. Pretty cool. :)

VirtualFM
03-28-2008, 09:15 PM
It is indeed a touchy subject, but the idea that modo is somehow based on Modeler is downright preposterous. Technologically, they're completely different, and they probably don't share a single line of code. Since modo is developed by the same people who made Layout and Modeler, they obviously have a lot of similarities, but you cannot honestly claim that modo was built upon Modeler.


Actually, I always wanted to post this and your message was really the right incentive (and caught me right in a break so I had some free time!)

Here's for:
-"the idea that modo is somehow based on Modeler"
-"they probably don't share a single line of code"
-"they obviously have a lot of similarities, but you cannot honestly claim that modo was built upon Modeler"

It's the exact same operation that always caused trouble since Lightwave... 3.5, at least!

Just make a sphere. Center. Go to another layer. Make a centered disc. Put the sphere in foreground and the disc in the back. Bollean/Subtract. If it worked, switch layers and rotate disc 90?. Switch layers again. Do another Boolean/Subtract. And there you go!

Note: Sometimes if breaks on the first subtract, but it sure never allows the second. It may work if you merge points after each boolean.

The point is: It sure is the same code, or at least the same algorithm, and it's definitelly the same message, even the same message formatting style.

joeldberry
03-28-2008, 09:16 PM
Check this out: demos of the new features of modo 302...
http://www.luxology.com/store/training_series08.aspx

From my (limited) experience, modo is VERY impressive and shows a LOT of promise for the future. A lot of Hollywood studios' reps and artists even show up at Lux's announcements. That's pretty encouraging.

I would probably bet they will be previewing 401 at SIGGRAPH this year. I know Character Animation is in the pipeline for a major release.

The one thing that impresses me most about modo is how easy it is to move back and forth between it and Lightwave. I just "feel" comfortable moving between these two. I don't feel like I am in a foreign land, like say, moving between Lightwave and Hexagon or Lightwave and Silo. Modo and Lightwave are just about the only programs I need for the 3D projects I do.

There are a few things missing from modo before it will become a complete 3D studio program in my opinion:
1) Character Animation/Rigging
2) Hard and Soft-Body Dynamics
3) Formulas and Equations for its keyframes (i.e., programmable animation)
4) No Particles
5) No Hair/Fur
6) No Cloth
7) No Physics Engine
8) No open SDK

modo is built around a completely new and modular programming engine called Nexus (I think) that allows Luxology to implement all kinds of features in relatively short time, so these things I have mentioned are on the timeline to be completed at some point. [setting the modo marketing brochure down]

And when they do, modo will be a force to be reckoned with. Hopefully, by that time, Lightwave will have evolved into a much more stable (I still get plenty of "Modeler 'freaked out': you should save your work and exit" type messages) and consistent (they keep moving dialogs, windows, settings and buttons around with every release) program.

The two together will enable anyone to conquer the world! And finally give Maya a run for its money...

joeldberry
03-28-2008, 09:17 PM
Actually, I always wanted to post this and your message was really the right incentive (and caught me right in a break so I had some free time!)

Here's for:
-"the idea that modo is somehow based on Modeler"
-"they probably don't share a single line of code"
-"they obviously have a lot of similarities, but you cannot honestly claim that modo was built upon Modeler"

It's the exact same operation that always caused trouble since Lightwave... 3.5, at least!

Just make a sphere. Center. Go to another layer. Make a centered disc. Put the sphere in foreground and the disc in the back. Bollean/Subtract. If it worked, switch layers and rotate disc 90?. Switch layers again. Do another Boolean/Subtract. And there you go!

Note: Sometimes if breaks on the first subtract, but it sure never allows the second. It may work if you merge points after each boolean.

The point is: It sure is the same code, or at least the same algorithm, and it's definitelly the same message, even the same message formatting style.

Oh, that's TOO funny! :bowdown:

frantbk
03-28-2008, 09:47 PM
[QUOTE=joeldberry;678961] modo is built around a completely new and modular programming engine called Nexus (I think) that allows Luxology to implement all kinds of features in relatively short time, so these things I have mentioned are on the timeline to be completed at some point. [setting the modo marketing brochure down]
[QUOTE]

Nexus is the programming application that modo is baked from (baked being a Luxology terminology). It takes Luxology just as long as NewTek to produce a product, so there isn't any features implemented faster then any other program. Fact is modo 302 should be released these week, or next if Lux were to keep its word on releasing modo; but in the past Lux has missed release dates just like every other software vender. Since modo 101 Brad Peebler (CEO of Luxology) has proudly stated that each new verison of modo has had 300 enchancement, and if you search the Lux forum you'll find that since modo 101 many of these tool functions are still being complained about as quirky and in need of fixing (Just like everybody else program). It is a nice program, but it is Mac centric and there seems to be some special relationship between Apple/Lux that nobody wants to talk about.
Most of the Modo users on the forum seem to have switched to the Mac/Intel (Just look at the forum, tons of mac posting, very little window users). Also Lux is now charging people for the demo because you have to buy a video tutorial to get the demo.

joeldberry
03-28-2008, 10:03 PM
[QUOTE=joeldberry;678961] modo is built around a completely new and modular programming engine called Nexus (I think) that allows Luxology to implement all kinds of features in relatively short time, so these things I have mentioned are on the timeline to be completed at some point. [setting the modo marketing brochure down]
[QUOTE]

Nexus is the programming application that modo is baked from (baked being a Luxology terminology). It takes Luxology just as long as NewTek to produce a product, so there isn't any features implemented faster then any other program. Fact is modo 302 should be released these week, or next if Lux were to keep its word on releasing modo; but in the past Lux has missed release dates just like every other software vender. Since modo 101 Brad Peebler (CEO of Luxology) has proudly stated that each new verison of modo has had 300 enchancement, and if you search the Lux forum you'll find that since modo 101 many of these tool functions are still being complained about as quirky and in need of fixing (Just like everybody else program). It is a nice program, but it is Mac centric and there seems to be some special relationship between Apple/Lux that nobody wants to talk about.
Most of the Modo users on the forum seem to have switched to the Mac/Intel (Just look at the forum, tons of mac posting, very little window users). Also Lux is now charging people for the demo because you have to buy a video tutorial to get the demo.

That must be why I feel all warm and tingly inside when I use modo: I have an Intel-based Mac! :D

Scazzino
03-28-2008, 10:06 PM
...The point is: It sure is the same code, or at least the same algorithm, and it's definitelly the same message, even the same message formatting style.

I agree... modo is new with a modern architecture & GUI, but there is indeed some old LW code (or at least the exact same programming logic) lurking deep down in the depths of modo, since I too have found some of the exact same bugs in both LW and modo... ;)

That said, I like them both. I use modo for modeling and LightWave for texturing, lighting, animating and rendering. They work well together. Before this combination I used to use Form-Z for modeling and Electric Image for texturing, lighting, animating and rendering. As for a Mac centric approach, that suits me perfectly, since I'm a Mac user... ;)

If I could only have one, I'd go with LightWave, since it's a far more complete solution. But if you can have both, they each have strengths that compliment each other and work well together. Many of us use a combination of various software in our 3D pipelines. There's nothing wrong with that...

:D

jin choung
03-28-2008, 10:10 PM
i know that modo renders and has a little bit of animation but...

if it is looked at primarily as a modeler and painter, it's NOT a good value. it's not best in class in terms of its painting/sculpting capability (mudbox and zbrush is what's being used by the big boys) but at least in terms of zb, it's $400 more?

pffffft.

it is not (some insist "YET!") a full cg package in the same category as maya, xsi, lw, houdini, etc.

Nicolas Jordan
03-28-2008, 10:14 PM
Actually, I always wanted to post this and your message was really the right incentive (and caught me right in a break so I had some free time!)

Here's for:
-"the idea that modo is somehow based on Modeler"
-"they probably don't share a single line of code"
-"they obviously have a lot of similarities, but you cannot honestly claim that modo was built upon Modeler"

It's the exact same operation that always caused trouble since Lightwave... 3.5, at least!

Just make a sphere. Center. Go to another layer. Make a centered disc. Put the sphere in foreground and the disc in the back. Bollean/Subtract. If it worked, switch layers and rotate disc 90?. Switch layers again. Do another Boolean/Subtract. And there you go!

Note: Sometimes if breaks on the first subtract, but it sure never allows the second. It may work if you merge points after each boolean.

The point is: It sure is the same code, or at least the same algorithm, and it's definitelly the same message, even the same message formatting style.


:agree: I am very convinced that 80% of the modeling tools are almost exactly the same as they were in Lightwave. The only difference is that they have been made aware of newer technology like edges and handle some things related to edges differently and in some cases much better than Lightwave currently does. What separates modo from Lightwave modeler is it's more modern architecture that allows for newer technologies to be introduced more easily. I believe modo was written fresh from the ground up but I don't believe most of it's modeling tools have.

monovich
03-28-2008, 10:52 PM
tried modo and quickly found it very useful, but in the end I didn't have needs to justify purchasing it. It's very cool and very slick, but not a must-buy. For certain projects I would pick it up for its modeling and painting capabilities, but I haven't landed any of those sort of projects.

plus... 9.5 is patching some holes that made me look over the fence.

IMI
03-28-2008, 10:53 PM
i know that modo renders and has a little bit of animation but...

if it is looked at primarily as a modeler and painter, it's NOT a good value. it's not best in class in terms of its painting/sculpting capability (mudbox and zbrush is what's being used by the big boys) but at least in terms of zb, it's $400 more?

pffffft.

it is not (some insist "YET!") a full cg package in the same category as maya, xsi, lw, houdini, etc.


Well, "value" is in the eyes of the beholder. There are alot of things from software and electronics to clothing to kitchen utensils and everything in between that has its better value counterpart. If you like something, you determine its value. In a perfect world, maybe "value" is a more precise factor.

As for it not being a full cg package, all of us who use it and love it are fully aware of that, and don't see it as any kind of liability if we look at it realistically. I suppose there are those who can't wait for it to evolve to that point, and there are probably those who are happy to point out it isn't, for whatever reasoning, but...
Then again, it's also not being marketed as a full cg package.

starprog
03-28-2008, 11:28 PM
I didn't mean to stir the bee hive. However come to think of it if we did have all these cool tools wrapped up in one app, I am sure we would have one not so cool price to go with it.

I mean even with a boxed version of lightwave with a paint program and sculpting prog thrown in, it still doesn't come close to the price of Maya or 3ds Max. So

I am done peeking over the fence, I am sticking with lightwave, even if modo is easier to model in.

RedBull
03-29-2008, 12:04 AM
It is indeed a touchy subject, but the idea that modo is somehow based on Modeler is downright preposterous. Technologically, they're completely different, and they probably don't share a single line of code. Since modo is developed by the same people who made Layout and Modeler, they obviously have a lot of similarities, but you cannot honestly claim that modo was built upon Modeler.

Oh you can, there is no doubt that many of the modeling tools are using fairly similar code, right down to the exact same bugs found in both programs, with the exact same tools, i mean even the requesters are often identical.

There is no doubt Modeler's code was used as a base, despite how much improvement and differences might occur in it's entirety.

jin choung
03-29-2008, 03:37 AM
As for it not being a full cg package, all of us who use it and love it are fully aware of that, and don't see it as any kind of liability if we look at it realistically. I suppose there are those who can't wait for it to evolve to that point, and there are probably those who are happy to point out it isn't, for whatever reasoning, but...
Then again, it's also not being marketed as a full cg package.

hey if you like it, more power to ya.

but for an app that's not in the same category as maya, xsi, lw, etc... its price is ludicrously steep by my standards. and as in all things, i'm just calling it as i see it.

if your sensibilities and wallet say otherwise, you've certainly a right to your preferences and enjoyment.

jin

Cageman
03-29-2008, 03:52 AM
No Maxwell

I know a guy at work who use Modo to build a scene and then render it using Maxwell. He said he use FBX to transfer things from Modo to Maxwell. :D

*Pete*
03-29-2008, 03:55 AM
Instead of getting upset about Modo using old LW modeller, i see it as a clear sign of LW modellers capabilities when it gets overhauled.

JBT27
03-29-2008, 04:05 AM
Actually, I always wanted to post this and your message was really the right incentive (and caught me right in a break so I had some free time!)

Here's for:
-"the idea that modo is somehow based on Modeler"
-"they probably don't share a single line of code"
-"they obviously have a lot of similarities, but you cannot honestly claim that modo was built upon Modeler"

It's the exact same operation that always caused trouble since Lightwave... 3.5, at least!

Just make a sphere. Center. Go to another layer. Make a centered disc. Put the sphere in foreground and the disc in the back. Bollean/Subtract. If it worked, switch layers and rotate disc 90?. Switch layers again. Do another Boolean/Subtract. And there you go!

Note: Sometimes if breaks on the first subtract, but it sure never allows the second. It may work if you merge points after each boolean.

The point is: It sure is the same code, or at least the same algorithm, and it's definitelly the same message, even the same message formatting style.

There's definitely a LW 'signature' in there - the Modeler bug we all tolerated for ages, of geometry outside the work view being selected along with the stuff you actually are working on, sometimes shows up in Modo. There have been a couple of threads on it, but it seems alot of people don't get the bug and it's still there for me anyway, at 301 Win32.

'All' Modeler needs to do is consolidate and modernise more - given all the plugins and scripts, especially LWCAD, it would give Modo a run for its money any day.....sculpting aside, which at a basic level at least needs to be on the cards for Modeler sooner than later.

Julian.

Dirk
03-29-2008, 04:21 AM
Woah, that 3D-Coat looks sweet!

Captain Obvious
03-29-2008, 04:38 AM
The point is: It sure is the same code, or at least the same algorithm, and it's definitelly the same message, even the same message formatting style.
LW Modeler and modo producing the same error on a boolean operation hardly proves anything

Cageman
03-29-2008, 04:46 AM
LW Modeler and modo producing the same error on a boolean operation hardly proves anything

In all honestly; I've seen far more things suggesting Modo is based on Modeler, than Modo being completely fresh. It's not far-fetched at all to think that many of Modos tools were based on what Modeler had. Similarities in error-messages and bugs ARE proving the fact that the same thinking is behind the two apps, no?

JBT27
03-29-2008, 04:49 AM
In all honestly; I've seen far more things suggesting Modo is based on Modeler, than Modo being completely fresh. It's not far-fetched at all to think that many of Modos tools were based on what Modeler had. Similarities in error-messages and bugs ARE proving the fact that the same thinking is behind the two apps, no?

Even without knowing the link between NT and Lux, any attentive user of both would begin to notice similarities, definitely.

Do seasoned programmers not have recognisable styles, like experienced artists?

Julian.

IMI
03-29-2008, 06:05 AM
but for an app that's not in the same category as maya, xsi, lw, etc... its price is ludicrously steep by my standards. and as in all things, i'm just calling it as i see it.


jin

Fair enough. So it costs maybe a fifth of the price of Maya, but only has maybe a tenth of the features, if that.
But for someone whose 3D work is largely limited to modeling, mapping and painting (such as myself), modo's speed in modeling and ease of use can help to double or triple one's output in a very short time.
And if the amount of work one can get done can beneficially impact one's income, the "value" of it is far more than simply enjoyment.

That's pretty much the argument that the Autodesk customers use to justify the costs of Maya and max - when it comes down to it, the amount of money spent is orders of magnitude less than the amount of income from its use.

Coming from a mere modeler's POV, I might just as easily make the case that Houdini is way overpriced, but I'd be wrong to state that as being anything more than an opinion.
And BTW, that's not my opinion, just an example.

In any event, Photoshop, max, Maya, Houdini, LW, modo... even Windows and OSX, MS Office.... ALL those are bad values when you set them up next to Gimp, Linux, Open Office, Blender... Hell, we could all be doing all this for free... ;)

toonafish
03-29-2008, 06:19 AM
So you find a 3D app that might suit your needs, but want other peeps to convince you otherwise....

what a weird thread.


About modo being based on Lightwave Modeler.

I've used LW from v. 4 and switched to Modo from its first release. I see a lot of similarity in most tools. I can see Lux recycling some of Modelers building bocks, endomorphs and weightmaps work basically the same, the way layers work is similar. Even some of the free plugins for Modeler like Magic Bevel were included in Modo and work and look exactly the same. Modo's initial file format was even lwo and we had a choice between Lightwave's SubPatches and a Modo flavour of Catmull SDS. I also think if Lux would have started from scratch, they would have included some kind of history stack which is Modo's biggest drawback. Any new 3D app should have some kind of history I think, especially when it comes to animating stuff.

cresshead
03-29-2008, 06:25 AM
what's the upgrade pricing like for modo and 'when' will it start to be a full featured app?

as a comparison maya complete is $1999 whereas modo is $895...
that to me say's that modo is selling itself a bit high...
mind you, that would also depend on the upkeep for new releases and so advancments in modo and the bug fixing too.

the next release of maya will have a muscle system for example.

cresshead
03-29-2008, 06:28 AM
So you find a 3D app that might suit your needs, but want other peeps to convince you otherwise....




I also think if Lux would have started from scratch, they would have included some kind of history stack which is Modo's biggest drawback. Any new 3D app should have some kind of history I think, especially when it comes to animating stuff.

yeah the lack of 'history' is a complete show stopper for me having been used to working with a modifier stack in 3dsmax...not having that in a NEW modern modeling app would feel like a step backwards.:agree:

with lightwave yu just sorta accept it as the app is around 15 year old now and has many cool features in layout to balance the app back up as a cutting edge app.

IMI
03-29-2008, 06:29 AM
Maya Complete is only two grand? I thought it was more like double that.

cresshead
03-29-2008, 06:33 AM
Maya Complete is only two grand? I thought it was more like double that.

http://usa.autodesk.com/adsk/servlet/index?siteID=123112&id=7931839&linkID=7679627

look in their store

$1995

IMI
03-29-2008, 06:39 AM
Ok, apparently I was thinking of Maya Ultimate. I mean, "complete" seems to me as if it would be...well, complete. ;)

cresshead
03-29-2008, 06:41 AM
btw maya complete does not have n cloth or maya fur but you can get shave and a haircut for maya complete to more than fill the needs of fur...so your not missing much in reality and you have soft bodies and hard bodies in maya complete which are extreemly powerful.

also note that with maya complete you have options for Vray, final render and renderman plugin renderers...that for me is more interesting than modo being stuck without a modeling history and no character animation...

maybe they should re name modo in a similar manner to that of maya complete and maya unlimited?

'modo bare bones' [not including bones]

cresshead
03-29-2008, 06:50 AM
:hijack:

:D


just to be clear:-

Autodesk Maya Complete

Intuitive User Interface
Data and Scene Management Tools
Polygon Modeling
NURBS Modeling
Subdivision Surface Modeling and Polygon Proxy Modeling
General Animation
Character Animation
Deformers
Rigid and Soft Body Dynamics
Particles and Fields


Maya Paint Effects
Toon Shader
Maya Artisan
3D Paint
Multiple Rendering Options
Rendering Controls and Effects
Integrated Scripting
OpenMaya API/SDK
Japanese Localization
Connectivity and Integration
CAD Data Transfer


Autodesk Maya Unlimited

Contains everything in Autodesk Maya Complete, plus:

Maya Fluid Effects
Maya Nucleus Unified Simulation Framework
Maya nCloth
Maya Hair
Maya Fur
Maya Live


for 95% of any project's needs maya complete will do fine...add shave and a haircut and that'll bump upto 98%
for fluids..i'd use blender..000.00 cost.

now compare what your missing with modo and well...you can read!

toonafish
03-29-2008, 06:57 AM
with lightwave yu just sorta accept it as the app is around 15 year old now and has many cool features in layout to balance the app back up as a cutting edge app.

Well, I stopped accepting and I regret I didn't do that sooner. Cutting edge is subjective, but not a term I'd use to describe Lightwave in the state it's in and has been for a long time :hey:

IMI
03-29-2008, 07:04 AM
maybe they should re name modo in a similar manner to that of maya complete and maya unlimited?

'modo bare bones' [not including bones]

Well, maybe they should rename Maya Complete to Maya Almost There But Not Quite as Complete as the Really Complete Version.
And Maya Unlimited could become Maya Slightly More Limited than Ultimate, while Ultimate could be called Maya Totally-Complete.
:D

cresshead
03-29-2008, 07:35 AM
Well, I stopped accepting and I regret I didn't do that sooner. Cutting edge is subjective, but not a term I'd use to describe Lightwave in the state it's in and has been for a long time :hey:

well lightwave's real camera lenses, 3d motion blur preview in the viewport
are on the cutting edge for example...i didn't say everything is cutting edge but lightwave does have a few things that lead and not follow the rest of the pack of 3d apps.

9.5 is building on that too.:thumbsup:

cresshead
03-29-2008, 07:42 AM
Well, maybe they should rename Maya Complete to Maya Almost There But Not Quite as Complete as the Really Complete Version.
And Maya Unlimited could become Maya Slightly More Limited than Ultimate, while Ultimate could be called Maya Totally-Complete.
:D

hey back at ya... so modo is really a lego construction kit that has 1 lego block then!....wow so useful!

hey...whatever your percesption is that's cool..and yeah the naming is abit ooff for the maya products but i simply must stress that maya complete is more complete and capable to deliver than near every other app, and i don;t even use it...i'm a 3dsmax/lightwave scribbler...

if your looking for still images or maybe arch tech walk thru's then modo can
do all of that with a fair degree of competance...if you want to add character animation or need nurbs toolset or vecta rendering...or....well read the list above then modo is just one of the tools you'll need to employ.

modo is far from complete....literally:D

IMI
03-29-2008, 07:54 AM
modo is far from complete....literally:D

I know, and I already said that. In fact, that was almost my entire argument. ;)
I'm not sure how the Maya part got started, but modo is as "complete" as it's advertised to be.
Somehow, for some reason, people seem to equate cost to the number of features they feel it should have, as if somehow Luxology owes it to people to deliver proportionally. Meaning, if it's 900 bucks it should include at least half of what Maya has.

Well, my part in this was simply to point out that to those who do see it as a justified cost versus value, it's no different than those who say the same about Autodesk.
Anyone who wants to use it legally has to pay what they want for it, and even at 900 dollars it's going to pay for itself fairly quickly.
Once again, if you're a character animator, you'd be disappointed, but if modeling and rendering stills is your primary thing, while you could get more for the same money with LW, it can't just be out of hand dismissed as a poor value because some people think it ought to have more features for that money, based on what other packages have.

cresshead
03-29-2008, 08:23 AM
i agree!:agree:

for what modo covers...it covers well by all accounts esp if you run it on mac osx as that seems to be less buggy.

Mike_RB
03-29-2008, 08:26 AM
We just wrapped our work on Iron Man. And there is no way we could have modeled and uv's the suit we were working on in any kind of reasonable time in lw modeler. Modo did a great job at it and the cost is insignificant related to artist time. In fact even loading and tumbling around the suit in modeler to set certain uv map interp to linear each time we updated the mesh was a huge pain. We avoided firing up modeler as much as possible. We also used modo to paint textures and model and fix a whole bunch of off axis stuff so the workplane was invaluable.

That's not to say we don't still have some love for LW, we used it for rendering on Iron Man and after working around a few problems we had pretty smooth sailing. In the future who knows what we'll be using for rendering... Modo still needs some features in the rendering department for us to be able to switch, and Newtek's been doing a good job of keeping the speed up.

We animated in xsi, for what we had to do, LW's 'animation' capabilities were no better than modo's.

There are some innacuracies in this thread as well, modo not being to use or bake tangent space normal maps are one, and modo only being able to animate value channels over time is another (301 has morph animation, and 302 will have vertexmap deformers [think a cluster with weightmap falloff] and light and camera targeting).

Michael

prometheus
03-29-2008, 09:04 AM
Many of the 3d modeling applications are developed for a certain task and perhaps to fill a void in some areas as modo probably was for modeler, but it was most surely in mind to develop to a more complete package.
In my point of view, it might take modo much longer time to acheive that then
for lightwave, then theres the question if the how well the code in the two programs are behaving for the future.

theres some (minor) modeling stuff I would like to see very soon in lightwave
such as
1. complete porting to layout
2. parametric object creation and history.
3. sculpt brush tool, don?t need to be as advanced as zbrush but like modo or houdini or maya.
4. paint tools with texture.
5. nurbs, I really miss this for some design stuff and really hope something will
come along with perhaps lwcad or truearts easymesh.

I just tested MOI nurbs modeler, and its very sweet from the creator of rhino I think.

zbrush and mudbox are very similar but for modeling hard bodys, not very good choice perhaps, in that area I would think modo excels, modo also lacks
nurbs and cad stuff, I wonder wich of them that will implement nurbs first
modo or lightwave? or perhaps no one ever will?

frantbk
03-29-2008, 09:21 AM
I know a guy at work who use Modo to build a scene and then render it using Maxwell. He said he use FBX to transfer things from Modo to Maxwell. :D

I know I'm going to get hammered on this, but that doesn't sound good for the Modo render. Why didn't your friend want to use Modo's render?

frantbk
03-29-2008, 09:24 AM
Instead of getting upset about Modo using old LW modeller, i see it as a clear sign of LW modellers capabilities when it gets overhauled.


Call me old, but Hey, big high five for that positive attitude. I like the way that sounds. Maybe NewTek will take the time to look at all the complaints about modo's modeling issue (posted here & at Lux forum) and side step some of the problems of Modo modeler.

frantbk
03-29-2008, 09:26 AM
There's definitely a LW 'signature' in there - the Modeler bug we all tolerated for ages, of geometry outside the work view being selected along with the stuff you actually are working on, sometimes shows up in Modo. There have been a couple of threads on it, but it seems alot of people don't get the bug and it's still there for me anyway, at 301 Win32.

'All' Modeler needs to do is consolidate and modernise more - given all the plugins and scripts, especially LWCAD, it would give Modo a run for its money any day.....sculpting aside, which at a basic level at least needs to be on the cards for Modeler sooner than later.

Julian.

Is is really a lightwave singature or did Lux just use an industry standard code to build on?

frantbk
03-29-2008, 09:33 AM
LW Modeler and modo producing the same error on a boolean operation hardly proves anything

The real question here is when did Luxology start development on Nexus. If I remember right; before the split with NewTek, didn't Peebler and crew try to talk NewTek into going with Nexus over future upgrades of Lightwave? I believe Brad Peebler and crew were a independent company from NewTek the last year or two and they were located in California and developing Lightwave 7, or 8 from CA. The way Peebler talked he has lived in TX 6 7 years.

Intuition
03-29-2008, 11:01 AM
modo is a better modeler and render engine overall then Lightwave.

But that being said, Lightwave has a better layering and nodal surfacing workflow. I have loaded big scenes into modo and quickly get tired of fussing with the shader tree. Lux is aware of this and hopefully will "modofy" it so we can have nodes and/or a better stacking layer system.

As far as modeling goes it is often seen that people with years of modeler experience will try modo for a few days and quickly want to run back to modeler because of the learned habits and memorized workflow that, once built, is hard to break.

I made myself work in modo for two weeks straight without running back to modeler when I had a snag due to quick key habits or not knowing something. Pretty soon I could open modo and quickly get what I needed because I had develped new modo workflow understanding, tried all the tools out in a proper context, and learned its quick key layout, UV unwrapping tools, etc.

When you get to this point in modo you can make a real judgement about it.

I then returned to modeler after a month and a half with modo. I hadn't forgotten my 10+ years of modeler either and quickly realized that even with really nicely set up hotkeys in modeler it wasn't even close for the overall modeling process as far as speed and workflow. Selection methods, fall offs, snapping and workplane alignment and combinations there of start to show you ways to model you've never thought of in modeler.

That being said and even though modo is a much faster and efficient modeler it has a few drawbacks to newteks modeler. One is that modo is heavy on the system resources. It has new fancy display modes and modular interface which eat up the ram where as modeler has a lower memory footprint making loading large poly heavy models much easier to deal with. modeler also has a few display types that are not in modo like hidden line which I really miss.

In modo I usually use the default color scheme which works fine but in modeler I had always set up my colors very specifically. Vertex are red, edges orange, polys blue, normals light blue, tools green, etc etc.

I couldn't set this up to my liking in modo. I can change some colors but not to the exacting level thats in modeler.

Now, on to the renderer. Modo's renderer just looks great. The objects can look to have a solid touchable feel to them much easier which lends itself to getting a photoreal feel much easier. The displacement is beyond belief. I have done much displacement work in LW over the years to do many effects.

When I tried these same tricks in modo they looked amazing. It seemed to displace much higher levels of polygons quickly and efficiently without the same memory requirements due to the bucket rendering. Each bucket would call up the polygons it needed and render that section out and then move on to the next one. This method is much better then trying to displace the whole mesh at the same time which takes the ram for a ride and hits limits sooner.

modo's previewer is not fprime and isn't trying to be. It is a previewer and does a very good job at it and thats all that is required of it and I really like the workflow of it.

GI wise modo is very fast. I mean VERY FAST. You can slow it down if you don't know how to use it but when you understand what the numbers are doing you can get where you need to quickly. That being said, now that 9.5 is showing itself I can see that now LW is in the same league as far as speed but I still prefer the modo engine due to its overall look and feel. Now, one thing to consider is that modo in production has shown a few problems.

There are some problems moving cameras through displacement terrain sometimes. Little polygons changing here and there but I have the same problem using APS in LW so its the same grass growing on both sides of the fence on this one with teh exception that modos disp look is better.


The network renderer is still troublesome in the bucket satellite rendering dropping textures and the per frame screamernet style render node method using mod_CL is only usable by those who know how to code it into their render farm as opposed to a quick button push method which.... sadly, no one really has setup properly this day and age. Screamernet was always something I hated setting up but I can do it easier then modo_cl so LW is still winning in the render farm setup. MikeRB has setup a modo network with BNR and Steve has setup modo_cl to work at EdenFX but I am still lost at home with modo_cl but have a nice screamer net 10 node easily set up here.

Animation wise there are many things modo does that Lightwave doesn't do but... modo is still in its infancy and does not have the multitude of stuff Lightwave has to offer. What modo doesn't in CA tools have I can get from XSI and FBX or mdd into modo. Not Ideal as a complete package but does work well.

modo.... no particles, hypervoxels.

Modo does not have as nice a motion blur as Lightwave, as a matter of fact no other package has as good of motion blur as Lightwave's unless you coun't Vray for max (not included with max) or renderman's Mblur but these rae not packages but rather specialized renderers.

Overall modo still has a ways to go to offer everything that Lightwave does as a production package but the modeling and rendering is very powerful and will reward those who learn it well.

No one is trying to count LW out in these threads either. I think we are all just working professionals and dedicated hobbyists who just want an honest look at these tools and give credit where its due.

nemac4
03-29-2008, 11:55 AM
We've had some serious performance issues with modo's network rendering . ButterflyNetRender allowed the best work around for the problems. I helped with beta testing the split render fixes for bnr, which we were using due to very poor node performance scaling with and print resolution images.
Lightwave's network rendering is much better in my opinion, though I would love to see a native bucket renderer.

Cageman
03-29-2008, 01:25 PM
I know I'm going to get hammered on this, but that doesn't sound good for the Modo render. Why didn't your friend want to use Modo's render?

Because he likes experimenting with different tools. He is now testing FryRender, and for that he uses LW as the bridge. He is a TD Art Lead and always looking for ways to not limit himself and/or the team.

Cageman
03-29-2008, 01:35 PM
Good post, however this one is strange...



Animation wise there are many things modo does that Lightwave doesn't do but... modo is still in its infancy and does not have the multitude of stuff Lightwave has to offer.

Didn't you mean that LW has the upper hand on animation? Otherwise I have a whole lot of stuff that I'm pretty sure Modo can't do. :)

frantbk
03-29-2008, 03:43 PM
Because he likes experimenting with different tools. He is now testing FryRender, and for that he uses LW as the bridge. He is a TD Art Lead and always looking for ways to not limit himself and/or the team.

So what did he think of the Maxwell/Modo renders? I'm just curious what he liked and didn't like about Maxwell/Modo renders.

webhead
03-29-2008, 04:08 PM
I use Lightwave, Modo, and ZBrush. I also use Motion and After Effects.
I use whatever works and that's within my budget. You know, it is okay to spread the love around.
They all have their strengths and weaknesses, but compliment each other pretty well.
I'm kind of addicted to getting the latest and greatest of this and that.
The only problem I have with so many different programs, besides that my wallet gets stretched to the point of nearly breaking, is that I don't get to spend as much time in either of them - really getting to know them deeply and thoroughly. It's like I'm becoming a jack of all trades and a master of none. As Scotty perpetually complained,"I need more time, Captain!"

Intuition
03-29-2008, 04:35 PM
Good post, however this one is strange...



Didn't you mean that LW has the upper hand on animation? Otherwise I have a whole lot of stuff that I'm pretty sure Modo can't do. :)

Yes, good catch. I meant that modo can do some animation stuff that is great but Lightwave has many more options for animation. ;)

Cageman
03-29-2008, 04:39 PM
So what did he think of the Maxwell/Modo renders? I'm just curious what he liked and didn't like about Maxwell/Modo renders.

I never asked him. Most of the Maxwell/FryRender stuff are things he experiments with on his sparetime.

Cageman
03-29-2008, 04:49 PM
I use Lightwave, Modo, and ZBrush. I also use Motion and After Effects.
I use whatever works and that's within my budget. You know, it is okay to spread the love around.
They all have their strengths and weaknesses, but compliment each other pretty well.
I'm kind of addicted to getting the latest and greatest of this and that.
The only problem I have with so many different programs, besides that my wallet gets stretched to the point of nearly breaking, is that I don't get to spend as much time in either of them - really getting to know them deeply and thoroughly. It's like I'm becoming a jack of all trades and a master of none. As Scotty perpetually complained,"I need more time, Captain!"

Word!

jin choung
03-29-2008, 05:34 PM
Somehow, for some reason, people seem to equate cost to the number of features they feel it should have, as if somehow Luxology owes it to people to deliver proportionally. Meaning, if it's 900 bucks it should include at least half of what Maya has.

it's because modo doesn't exist in a vacuum. it exists in context of other apps that can deliver similar features at publically disclosed price points.

it's pretty much the same situation as lw in a lot of ways. many of the lightwave faithful cannot bear the burden of comparison. but it's inevitable.

but with lw, no matter its faults, it always wins in the price/performance metric (though blender is gonna challenge this soon).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
and NO ONE is contesting that software makers can charge whatever they want. they can charge a million bucks per seat if they so choose.

BUT

that does not mean that i cannot or should not say quite publically, hey, in my book, that's overpriced for what it does.

and i vote with my dollars and so do others.

and as i said, if you vote yea and it is a good value for you in your estimation, great.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

also, in my book, photoshop IS RIDICULOUSLY OVERPRICED. $600 in this day and age for an image editor? lot of people disagree with me. fine. in my estimation, this is ridiculously overpriced. i will never and have never paid that much. but adobe is cool by offering a reasonable "back door" policy (get virtually any old version on ebay [i bought photoshop 2 on 3.5" floppies for $50] and upgrade to current version for the same price as everyone else - $200).

houdini IS ridiculously overpriced imo. and here is an example where enough people think that that it affects their marketshare that has been chewed to bits by maya. also the fact that they keep releasing lower price point versions hint at this as well.

in regards to that, the very existence of maya complete speaks to the downward price pressure of apps like lightwave and c4d. this bow to lower prices will become a full on kowtow once blender gets over the last little bits keeping it from being as easy to use as it can be.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

as for the cost of the tool being a good value in proportion to the money you will earn with it -

with that sentiment, it may be possible to say that a "professional hammer" should easily be worth $5000. "hey folks, can you IMAGINE the money you will earn with this hammer?! all those contracting jobs? the fact that it's backed up with a LIFETIME WARRANTY! you can't afford not to buy?"

the argument falls apart.

the metric of value comes down to a LOT of factors and ultimately, if enough consumers don't agree with the producer, the producer fails.

jin

IMI
03-29-2008, 05:51 PM
I agree now with most of what you're saying here, Jin, just takes me a while sometimes to put it all properly into perspective. ;)

Although I personally wouldn't pay, say 1500 bucks for modo as it exists now, I have no problem with the current price. Yeah, it does less than LW, but where modeling is concerned it does it far better, easier and quicker, plus has a whole slew of options and features Modeler simply lacks.
Unfortunately, NT doesn't seem to be anywhere as concerned about Modeler as it is with Layout (Jeez, I'm getting really tired of discussing these as if they were two separate programs), so I have to go with what I think will continue to deliver for me. No sense continuing to be unhappy with Modeler's shortcomings when I can be thrilled with modo's benefits.
Overpriced for what it does? Maybe, but I'm not looking at it that way. I'm just a part-time freelance schmuck with a full time job I need to devote most of my energy to, and modo allows me to utilize my 3D time more efficiently and productively. So in that sense, I find it "worth it". I was originally attracted to LW because it was the best and easiest polygon modeler around at the time. I don't need the animation stuff, although I do enjoy experimenting with it all, but that part of LW is "extra" as far as I'm concerned.

But yeah, I see what you're saying now.

Mike_RB
03-29-2008, 09:17 PM
The network renderer is still troublesome in the bucket satellite rendering dropping textures and the per frame screamernet style render node method using mod_CL is only usable by those who know how to code it into their render farm as opposed to a quick button push method which.... sadly, no one really has setup properly this day and age. Screamernet was always something I hated setting up but I can do it easier then modo_cl so LW is still winning in the render farm setup. MikeRB has setup a modo network with BNR and Steve has setup modo_cl to work at EdenFX but I am still lost at home with modo_cl but have a nice screamer net 10 node easily set up here.

We have it running at work with the standard version and the commandline version and it's super easy to setup and works great. Butterfly/Paul Lord did a great job.

RedBull
03-30-2008, 12:54 AM
LW Modeler and modo producing the same error on a boolean operation hardly proves anything

I don't think he needs to show proof of anything, it's quite well known that he's correct, it would be you who needs to backup your opinion with some fact.

Captain Obvious
03-30-2008, 06:01 AM
I don't think he needs to show proof of anything, it's quite well known that he's correct, it would be you who needs to backup your opinion with some fact.
That's completely backwards. I have seen nothing more than circumstantial evidence that modo would be based on the same technology as Modeler, and you're telling me to provide evidence? Well fine, I'll ask Allen Hastings the next time I meet him if they actually used any code from Lightwave or Modeler.

If Luxology were actually able to take Modeler's code base and build modo out of it, do you honestly believe NewTek would be struggling so much with integrating Modeler tools into Layout? modo does not even use the same internal data structures as Modeler, so I fail to see how it could possibly be based on the same code. It's not like you can just copy the source code from one application and paste it into a different one that uses a different way of handling data, and still get working results.

The fact that they have their similarities does not prove anything, and is really quite reasonable. If virtually the same bunch of people create two different applications, there's a very good chance the two applications will do a lot of things the same way. If you got it right the first time, why do it differently the next time?

mav3rick
03-30-2008, 06:06 AM
i bought 101 back in the days.... and aside it is hanging way too much and doesnt give me any chance to model longer than half n hour i miss animation tools and that is why i never updated to any later versions

Captain Obvious
03-30-2008, 06:21 AM
i bought 101 back in the days.... and aside it is hanging way too much and doesnt give me any chance to model longer than half n hour i miss animation tools and that is why i never updated to any later versions
Wait, I'm confused. You wanted animation tools in modo, so you stayed with the old version that didn't have any?

Cageman
03-30-2008, 06:41 AM
The fact that they have their similarities does not prove anything, and is really quite reasonable. If virtually the same bunch of people create two different applications, there's a very good chance the two applications will do a lot of things the same way. If you got it right the first time, why do it differently the next time?

True, but I still find it quite amazing that the two produces the exact same bug and behaviour, IF they were not based on the same code. Don't you think that? Obviously, cheating whenever it is possible is common practice in this industry (reusing old content slightly modified etc) and I don't see why that would be limited to artists. I bet programmers do the exact same thing; reuse whatever they code and modify to fit the bill.

Anyhow... does it really matter to you if some Modo-tools would be based on code from Modeler? I mean, Modo is quite different in its own respect, so I don't see why you are so defensive about this?

Cageman
03-30-2008, 06:52 AM
If Luxology were actually able to take Modeler's code base and build modo out of it, do you honestly believe NewTek would be struggling so much with integrating Modeler tools into Layout?

:)

Uhm... we are talking about a single tool here, Booleans... not the complete package. :) It seems that it is the internal working of the Boolean-tool that is very similar to Modeler; to the point of actually procucing the exact same bug, suggesting it is the same code/algorithm.

I don't think anyone here belives that Lux took the complete code from Modeler and built upon that... and I havn't seen anyone stating that either. But it seems quite obvious that bits and pieces of Modeler has been the foundation/idea/structure for Modo.

Lightwolf
03-30-2008, 07:08 AM
I bet programmers do the exact same thing; reuse whatever they code and modify to fit the bill.
That's actually considered to be good practice... and code is often designed with re-usability in mind.

Cheers,
Mike

Mike_RB
03-30-2008, 08:21 AM
What does it matter if there are parts of modeler buried in modo? Where the've taken it is a completely different place than where modeler has gone. The future looks bright for both lightwave and modo at this point, which is great for us users as we have 2 companies creating software to satisfy us.

IMI
03-30-2008, 09:04 AM
The future looks bright for both lightwave and modo at this point, which is great for us users as we have 2 companies creating software to satisfy us.

Yeah, exactly.
Personally I'd like to see an all-out war between them in an effort to each outdo the other. ;)

Lightwolf
03-30-2008, 09:09 AM
Where the've taken it is a completely different place than where modeler has gone.
Do you think so? I see modo as an evolutionary step from Modeler/Layout... expanding in some areas (more or less) ... but also keeping some of the weaker areas in other...

What the current NT dev team will do with Modeler is bount to be interesting though (in a way to see what happens if you base two different teams off the same common concepts and see them take it in different directions), I'm looking forward to that.

Cheers,
Mike

Mike_RB
03-30-2008, 09:25 AM
Do you think so? I see modo as an evolutionary step from Modeler/Layout... expanding in some areas (more or less) ... but also keeping some of the weaker areas in other...

What the current NT dev team will do with Modeler is bount to be interesting though (in a way to see what happens if you base two different teams off the same common concepts and see them take it in different directions), I'm looking forward to that.

Cheers,
Mike

I guess so, I just know that the tool pipe and workplane are invaluable to us now.

Mike_RB
03-30-2008, 09:34 AM
And being able to leverage the workplane and falloffs and centers for item animation/movement is really interesting,

IMI
03-30-2008, 09:39 AM
And being able to leverage the workplane and falloffs and centers for item animation/movement is really interesting,

Makes for a helluva lot more options when using the modeling tools as well.

Mike_RB
03-30-2008, 09:45 AM
like this:
http://www.elementvfx.com/WebDemo/dancing_teapots.mov
5mb quicktime

Done using just move,scale and rotate with different action centers and falloffs and then moving time and keying.

Lightwolf
03-30-2008, 09:52 AM
I guess so, I just know that the tool pipe and workplane are invaluable to us now.
...but no construction history or elegant handling of high/huge polygon meshes...

And being able to leverage the workplane and falloffs and centers for item animation/movement is really interesting,
Imagine if there was a construction history to leverage ;)

Cheers,
Mike

Hopper
03-30-2008, 10:48 AM
That's actually considered to be good practice... and code is often designed with re-usability in mind.
Absolutely. If an application's design patterns are not conducive to code re-use it is already doomed as far as the evolution of a solid product goes.


modo does not even use the same internal data structures as Modeler, so I fail to see how it could possibly be based on the same code. It's not like you can just copy the source code from one application and paste it into a different one that uses a different way of handling data, and still get working results.
The days of procedural programming have long since died. Internal data structures vs. operational code means nothing in todays usage of object oriented programming. In many cases you actually can simply cut and paste code from one application and paste it into another and have it work with little to no effort. We do it all the time.

Applications that follow best practices for system design sperate the data structures from data implementation and both from the UI presentation. And from what I've seen of the SDK that NT has provided, they do just that.

So with that, I don't totally agree that performing the same operation between two applications resulting in the same output means that they used the same code, but the uncanny similarities of the error message based on the same operation make it much more likely that code re-use has definately occurred here.

Just my opinion as a 20 year programmer veteran.

IMI
03-30-2008, 11:24 AM
I don't really have an opinion on it one way or the other, and I know virtually nothing about programming.
But it doesn't seem like too much of a stretch to assume they did reuse some of the code, or at least something very similar, considering they wrote LW in the first place.
We don't really know how much proprietery rights they held onto, do we?
In any event, how much does a line of code have to be similar to another line to do the same thing?
Out of curiosity, what programming languages are LW and modo written in?

Hopper
03-30-2008, 01:00 PM
Out of curiosity, what programming languages are LW and modo written in?
C and/or C++

RedBull
03-30-2008, 02:39 PM
That's completely backwards. I have seen nothing more than circumstantial evidence that modo would be based on the same technology as Modeler, and you're telling me to provide evidence? Well fine, I'll ask Allen Hastings the next time I meet him if they actually used any code from Lightwave or Modeler.

Well the rest of us already know how it was done, if you have to ask, after you already told us previously the facts, Obviously I'm confused. But if you talk to Allen and more Stuart you will find that much code has been reused, How stupid to do it any other way.

You were the one telling others they were incorrect, but anyone with an ounce of technical knowledge knows better, if you think you're opinion is more valid than everyone elses, than it needs to be more than opinion to be called fact.


If Luxology were actually able to take Modeler's code base and build modo out of it, do you honestly believe NewTek would be struggling so much with integrating Modeler tools into Layout?

What has one got to do with the other, they are mutually exclusive...
and your point is completely irrelevant. But in answer to your question, yes! And your also assuming that every line of code is the same, and obviously nobody has said as much.


If you got it right the first time, why do it differently the next time?

Are you arguing against yourself now? But hey my point exactly.
As mentioned it's so obvious they are sharing code, you would think it would be almost too obvious. But not to those who are the Captain Obviously... ;)

Cageman
03-30-2008, 03:25 PM
The future looks bright for both lightwave and modo at this point, which is great for us users as we have 2 companies creating software to satisfy us.

Aye... :)

frantbk
03-30-2008, 05:13 PM
If I remember correctely. Brad Peebler has stated that modo and lightwave are alike in the way they handle geomerty vers XSI, Cinema 4D, 3D MAX, and Maya, but the two are not the same in the way they handle coding.

pumeco
03-31-2008, 05:44 AM
I don't know who it was that forwarded my complaint to Luxology, but whoever it was, thankyou :thumbsup:

Captain Obvious
03-31-2008, 07:14 AM
Well the rest of us already know how it was done, if you have to ask, after you already told us previously the facts, Obviously I'm confused. But if you talk to Allen and more Stuart you will find that much code has been reused, How stupid to do it any other way.
Okay, fair enough, maybe they did copy and paste the code for boolean operations. That's certainly a possibility. However, that's not my point. What I'm disagreeing with is the idea that modo was based on Modeler. There's a huge difference between grabbing snippets of code from Modeler's tools and sticking them into modo, and actually taking Modeler's code base and changing it into modo.

frantbk
03-31-2008, 08:33 AM
Okay, fair enough, maybe they did copy and paste the code for boolean operations. That's certainly a possibility. However, that's not my point. What I'm disagreeing with is the idea that modo was based on Modeler. There's a huge difference between grabbing snippets of code from Modeler's tools and sticking them into modo, and actually taking Modeler's code base and changing it into modo.

Modo's four pane view for modeling is newer OpenGL then Lightwaves, but it is almost a one-for-one copy of it. It does not look like 3D Max, Maya, XSI, or any other program currently on the market, and most importantly modo's four pane does not demonstrate any design concepts different from Lightwave. I'd say you are fighting a losing battle here. You are trying to do revisionist history of modo. Accept that facts, Modo & Lightwave are kissin cousin.

Lightwolf
03-31-2008, 08:41 AM
What I'm disagreeing with is the idea that modo was based on Modeler.
But it is, regardless of the codebase. The design is an evolution of Modeler... with a revamped GUI (which is by all means related to the last GUI addition to LW, XPanels) and very similar concepts. Have they been taking further? Surely. That doesn't meant that the roots can't be the same (and they obviously are). Nobody is saying that's a bad thing either.

Cheers,
Mike

Captain Obvious
03-31-2008, 09:42 AM
Depends on what you mean by "based on," I suppose.

Burndog
03-31-2008, 10:40 AM
modo is a better modeler and render engine overall then Lightwave.

Now, on to the renderer. Modo's renderer just looks great. The objects can look to have a solid touchable feel to them much easier which lends itself to getting a photoreal feel much easier.

I wish Lightwave could produce the render quality shown in the examples on the Lux site. Not being an hard core animator (more of a graphic designer/flying logo guy), I would trade my copy of LW for Modo at this point. Maybe later, the animation benefits would outweigh the slightly less quality of renders but right now I can only be jealous of the photo-realistic metals and other materials Modo puts out.

Maybe Lightwave will get a better render engine? Hopefully the competition will force this in a future release and we can have the same render quality as well as the full scope of Lightwaves animation and extensibility.

Chris S. (Fez)
03-31-2008, 10:48 AM
I wish Lightwave could produce the render quality shown in the examples on the Lux site.

It can. Minus Modo's awesome sub-pixel displacement. But surfacing in Lightwave is superior IMO.

globalnode
03-31-2008, 11:10 AM
I wish Lightwave could produce the render quality shown in the examples on the Lux site. Not being an hard core animator (more of a graphic designer/flying logo guy), I would trade my copy of LW for Modo at this point. Maybe later, the animation benefits would outweigh the slightly less quality of renders but right now I can only be jealous of the photo-realistic metals and other materials Modo puts out.

Maybe Lightwave will get a better render engine? Hopefully the competition will force this in a future release and we can have the same render quality as well as the full scope of Lightwaves animation and extensibility.

Lightwave will render just as good as modo in the right hands...

frantbk
03-31-2008, 11:21 AM
Depends on what you mean by "based on," I suppose.

The same basic concepts of implementation and function with only an evolutionary difference in the external :devil:. which would be the difference between Lightwave and Modo :lwicon::thumbsup:.

frantbk
03-31-2008, 11:23 AM
It can. Minus Modo's awesome sub-pixel displacement. But surfacing in Lightwave is superior IMO.

I have a question. Does Lightwave support micro-pixel (was poly) rendering?

frantbk
03-31-2008, 11:26 AM
But it is, regardless of the codebase. The design is an evolution of Modeler... with a revamped GUI (which is by all means related to the last GUI addition to LW, XPanels) and very similar concepts. Have they been taking further? Surely. That doesn't meant that the roots can't be the same (and they obviously are). Nobody is saying that's a bad thing either.

Cheers,
Mike

Well, C.O. seems to think something is bad about Lightwave and Modo being related. On the upside I think someone said it best. NT has an opportunity to see what Lightwave's modeling capabilities can be by looking at modo. NewTek has the opportunity to side-step some of modo's tool function problem if NT is willing to listen.

Chris S. (Fez)
03-31-2008, 12:12 PM
I have a question. Does Lightwave support micro-pixel (was poly) rendering?

Lightwave's displacement is actually quite robust. Though it theoretically allows us to split polygons at the subpixel level, I have personally found that it is not on par with Modo's subpixel displacement. Having said that, Modo is not on par with Renderman, at least in terms of performance.

Hyper-detailed Zbrush displacements will likely be more accurate with Modo. But for simple to moderately complex displacement maps, Lightwave displacement definitely does the job.

IMI
03-31-2008, 02:09 PM
Hyper-detailed Zbrush displacements will likely be more accurate with Modo. But for simple to moderately complex displacement maps, Lightwave displacement definitely does the job.

This is true. One of the first things I tried in modo 301 was adding a ZB displacement map to a model I made and it looked great in modo 301 without jumping through hoops like you have to do in LW. Just import the image map, change the type to displacement and that's it.
However, LW seems to offer alot more flexibility with manipulating displacement, so I wouldn't say because it's easier, it's better. I've managed some pretty nice detail in LW - it's just a matter of tweaking the settings. Sometimes. Some ZB displacement maps and models just don't want to cooperate in LW and give some weird results.
I've also discovered thought that a model made in modo, painted in modo and displacement sculpted in modo but saved out as a .lwo file will load into layout just fine, image maps intact, even if the image maps aren't in an LW Content directory. I didn't think that was possible, but apparently a lwo file can store absolute paths to image maps. I guess Modeler doesn't save them out that way, while modo does?
Although, you still have to manually set up the displacement map in LW, since that information doesn't carry over in the lwo format when exported from modo. No surprise there. But they work great in Layout too, once applied and the render subdivision levels set appropriately.

I wouldn't say thought that modo renders nicer than LW, it's just easier and quicker to set something up in modo. One thing I do like in modo is the spread angle on the distant lights makes nicer shadows than LW's distant lights and is far quicker than using an area light to get a similar effect.
People who know what they're doing can get a great render out of anything halfway capable though. I was looking at some POV-ray renders that blew my mind recently.
But once again, the bottom line is, LW and modo work extremely well together and compliment each other totally.

frantbk
03-31-2008, 02:36 PM
Lightwave's displacement is actually quite robust. Though it theoretically allows us to split polygons at the subpixel level, I have personally found that it is not on par with Modo's subpixel displacement. Having said that, Modo is not on par with Renderman, at least in terms of performance.

Hyper-detailed Zbrush displacements will likely be more accurate with Modo. But for simple to moderately complex displacement maps, Lightwave displacement definitely does the job.

Thanks for the reply. The next question I would have is, is how many modo users adjust the micro-pixel settings on most of their work? Also someone posted something about a Lightwave plugin (HD-? - sorry I can't remember anything today) that rendered photo real renders.

IgnusFast
03-31-2008, 04:03 PM
I really tried to like Modo, but it's just hard to wrap your head around a new interface after so long with a single app. Since I don't do any animation, I wouldn't particularly miss that aspect of it. But I found the surface tree and object list really confusing to use.

But I have to say, Modo's OpenGL implementation just kicks the snot out of that in Lightwave. Lightwave, and in particular Modeler, starts to drag with just a few hundred thousand polygons in the mix. But even on my underpowered laptop, Modo felt smooth and responsive with over 1.6 million.

Earl
03-31-2008, 04:29 PM
Depends on what you mean by "based on," I suppose.


they're completely different, and they probably don't share a single line of code.

The fact that some of the tools are identical very clearly shows that they do indeed share exact lines of code. It's no accident that the error message itself is identical either. People don't just type up the same explanation years later when writing something from scratch. Anyone familiar with LW who used Modo (including myself) on its launch knew it was jarringly similar to Modeler - so much so that many people couldn't stomach the price because they already owned 85% of it in LightWave. Modo was undeniably an evolution of Modeler's code, and by every definition of "based on" it surely was that as well.


the idea that modo is somehow based on Modeler is downright preposterous.
To believe this, you either have to be ignorant of Modo's first release, or just unobservant. But this is not in any way a knock on Modo, because for a long time LightWave's Modeler was considered one of the best polygonal modeling environments in the industry. It was smart to build off of that.

Snosrap
03-31-2008, 10:12 PM
But I have to say, Modo's OpenGL implementation just kicks the snot out of that in Lightwave.

Yes modo's OGL is nice and buttery. But import many objects to create a scene and it slows to crawl to the point of being unusable.

Snosrap

IgnusFast
03-31-2008, 10:23 PM
Yes modo's OGL is nice and buttery. But import many objects to create a scene and it slows to crawl to the point of being unusable.

Snosrap

I would have loved to have tried that, but the rather lame time-limited demo made it an impossibility.

Never got far enough beyond the oooh and aaah stage. Love that bucket renderer, though.... :)

Captain Obvious
04-01-2008, 04:50 AM
The same basic concepts of implementation and function with only an evolutionary difference in the external :devil:. which would be the difference between Lightwave and Modo :lwicon::thumbsup:.
Well, I suppose then you could call it "based on." But if that's the case, it still isn't based on the actual Modeler codebase, which a lot of people seem to think and what I disagree with.



Well, C.O. seems to think something is bad about Lightwave and Modo being related.
Nah, not really.


The fact that some of the tools are identical very clearly shows that they do indeed share exact lines of code.
Yeah, fair enough -- I'm probably wrong about that.


To believe this, you either have to be ignorant of Modo's first release, or just unobservant. But this is not in any way a knock on Modo, because for a long time LightWave's Modeler was considered one of the best polygonal modeling environments in the industry. It was smart to build off of that.
modo 2 was basically a full rewrite from modo 1, though.

frantbk
04-01-2008, 08:27 AM
Well, I suppose then you could call it "based on." But if that's the case, it still isn't based on the actual Modeler codebase, which a lot of people seem to think and what I disagree with.

I'm of the belief that they are talking codebase as in structure of codebase, and the handling of the geometry data and tool function versus tool function of XSI, 3D Max/Maya, Cinema 4D. In other words general structure compatibility between Lightwave/Modo.


modo 2 was basically a full rewrite from modo 1, though.

While 103 is different then 201 I remember Lux saying that they split the codebase for the inclusion of technology for 201 that 103 would not support. And what I remember is that 201 was a complete rewrite for the Mac/Intel, not a complete rewrite of the core codebase.

frantbk
04-01-2008, 02:22 PM
Well, todays April 1st. This means that it is the end of the 1st quarter and Luxology didn't deliver Modo. What happened? This is three years in a row Lux hasn't met its 1st quarter projection for the release of Modo. What is the deal with Nexus? :devil::devil::devil::devil::lwicon:

IMI
04-01-2008, 02:28 PM
Maybe it's Lux's little April Fool's joke. ;)

IMI
04-01-2008, 02:58 PM
They've stated that it's coming this friday and given their reasons why. Get more facts, ***** less ;)


Yeah, I saw that too, but didn't feel like mentioning it. ;)

Cageman
04-01-2008, 03:15 PM
Well, todays April 1st. This means that it is the end of the 1st quarter and Luxology didn't deliver Modo. What happened? This is three years in a row Lux hasn't met its 1st quarter projection for the release of Modo. What is the deal with Nexus? :devil::devil::devil::devil::lwicon:

Ehm... LW has been delayed many times before... nothing to shout about. The nature of coding and a sign of goodwill; they want to deliver as much as possible with as few bugs as possible (goes for both NT and Lux). Wether or not they succeed with that is another question, but the goodwill is there and that counts alot!

Captain Obvious
04-01-2008, 03:17 PM
I'm of the belief that they are talking codebase as in structure of codebase, and the handling of the geometry data and tool function versus tool function of XSI, 3D Max/Maya, Cinema 4D. In other words general structure compatibility between Lightwave/Modo.
But if that is indeed what they mean, then it all gets a bit fuzzy. After all, how much of that is that modo was based on Lightwave, and how much is just that programmers tend to have a certain style and preferred method?

I've never written anything more complex than a few thousand lines of code (if that), but whenever I write a new program to replace an old one but with the same basic concept in mind, I wouldn't necessarily say that the new one is based on the old one, since I typically restructure and rethink the whole thing from scratch. Even then, however, they do tend to function in a sort of similar fashion and the error messages are probably the same, letter by letter (why bother rewriting them?). Does that mean I base the new one on the old one?




Well, todays April 1st. This means that it is the end of the 1st quarter and Luxology didn't deliver Modo. What happened? This is three years in a row Lux hasn't met its 1st quarter projection for the release of Modo. What is the deal with Nexus?
Has anyone in the history of software development ever actually hit the release date? To be honest, missing it by as little as a week is pretty darned good.

Lightwolf
04-01-2008, 05:17 PM
Does that mean I base the new one on the old one?
Yes. You're unlikely to radically change your approach... especially after a few years of hardcore coding (allthough there's nothing wrong with that, in fact it is good... but habits grow).
Not only is it based on previous code... but also on the experience of writing the initial code.

Cheers,
Mike

jin choung
04-01-2008, 05:24 PM
i was just looking at this and it's so fitting:

http://www.despair.com/consistency.html

if it asks for a code today, it is:

user: april
code: fools

jin

frantbk
04-01-2008, 08:23 PM
They've stated that it's coming this friday and given their reasons why. Get more facts, ***** less ;)


Well pass the love and give the reason in writing here neverko. I warned everyone that it was a just a rant with the little devil guy. That I was being cantankerous, and they have missed the last three years, oh and by the why when your talk about NT missing due dates, is that back when Lux was the development team for Lightwave :devil::devil::devil::devil::neener::D (just good natured ribbing of the modo guys)

frantbk
04-01-2008, 08:28 PM
Ehm... LW has been delayed many times before... nothing to shout about. The nature of coding and a sign of goodwill; they want to deliver as much as possible with as few bugs as possible (goes for both NT and Lux). Wether or not they succeed with that is another question, but the goodwill is there and that counts alot!

What I've noticed over the last 3 years is that Lux hasn't released in the 1st quarter since modo 103, so if they are releasing this Friday then it will be interesting to see if this update is short on functions. May/June was the releases for 201/301.

Also every March for the, what, last 2-to-3 years NewTek begins the beta testing. Therefore, the point I'm trying to make is that the old technology of Lightwave, XSI, 3D Max/Maya take just as long to code as Modo with Nexus.

frantbk
04-01-2008, 08:32 PM
But if that is indeed what they mean, then it all gets a bit fuzzy. After all, how much of that is that modo was based on Lightwave, and how much is just that programmers tend to have a certain style and preferred method?

I've never written anything more complex than a few thousand lines of code (if that), but whenever I write a new program to replace an old one but with the same basic concept in mind, I wouldn't necessarily say that the new one is based on the old one, since I typically restructure and rethink the whole thing from scratch. Even then, however, they do tend to function in a sort of similar fashion and the error messages are probably the same, letter by letter (why bother rewriting them?). Does that mean I base the new one on the old one?

Has anyone in the history of software development ever actually hit the release date? To be honest, missing it by as little as a week is pretty darned good.

Well you've pretty much asked and answered your own question. When you use old concepts to structure your new program on the new program has an inheritance factor that can't be denied.

Captain Obvious
04-02-2008, 05:40 AM
Yes. You're unlikely to radically change your approach... especially after a few years of hardcore coding (allthough there's nothing wrong with that, in fact it is good... but habits grow).
Not only is it based on previous code... but also on the experience of writing the initial code.

Well you've pretty much asked and answered your own question. When you use old concepts to structure your new program on the new program has an inheritance factor that can't be denied.
Which essentially means that ANYTHING I write will be based on programs I've written before, and the whole debate is null and void. Surely you can see what I mean by the whole thing being a bit... fuzzy.




Therefore, the point I'm trying to make is that the old technology of Lightwave, XSI, 3D Max/Maya take just as long to code as Modo with Nexus.
It's not like Nexus saves you from actually writing the code in the first place.

Lightwolf
04-02-2008, 05:46 AM
Which essentially means that ANYTHING I write will be based on programs I've written before...
Strictly speaking, yes, just as any project is based on previous projects. Mind you, that goes especially for projects where you're the lead (if you just "contribute" things are different).

However, showing the same error message word for word and also showing the same behaviour is a pretty good indication for code that is not just based but more or less identical.

Cheers,
Mike

frantbk
04-02-2008, 07:20 AM
It's not like Nexus saves you from actually writing the code in the first place.

Nexus also adds a extra layer of complexity that has to be questioned as necessary. One example of this is the 64-bit conversion of modo. Someone here stated that Lux (by their estimate) is two years behind everyone in the industry. The fact is Lux is probably four years behind. Before a 64-bit version of modo can be baked from nexus. Luxology has to convert Nexus to 64-bit. According to Brad Peebler it took Lux 4 year to produce Nexus. It will probably take 2 years to code nexus, 1 year to kill bugs and check stability, and another 6 months to a year to train everyone to code in 64-bit. Then it will take another year to work on 64-bit modo. That is around 5 years. I doubt you'll see 64-bit modo any sooner then 2010-11.

Another problem with Nexus is that, until 2007, Lux was demonstrating future function for modo with nexus, but when modo was release many of the functions demonstrated in nexus didn't work like the demo /were quirky in modo. Customers weren't real happy, so nexus isn't the silver bullet that Luxology has tried to claim it is. I believe NT saw this when the Lux team tried to talk NT into scraping lightwave and that (and many other question) is what lead to the split between the two. I believe NT made the right decision not to go with nexus.

frantbk
04-02-2008, 07:23 AM
Strictly speaking, yes, just as any project is based on previous projects. Mind you, that goes especially for projects where you're the lead (if you just "contribute" things are different).

However, showing the same error message word for word and also showing the same behaviour is a pretty good indication for code that is not just based but more or less identical.

Cheers,
Mike

At a basic level it shows that Lux is using the same dll's to call up error messages. How advance is nexus if it is using the same dll's as lightwave?

mav3rick
04-02-2008, 07:58 AM
Wait, I'm confused. You wanted animation tools in modo, so you stayed with the old version that didn't have any?

it was more like pay to support developing and than i decide not to pay for any other upgrade until animation tools come.... that didnt happen i didnt update.

Captain Obvious
04-02-2008, 08:22 AM
modo 3 has animation in it, albeit rather basic.

cresshead
04-02-2008, 11:40 AM
modo 3 has animation in it, albeit rather basic.

modo has particles in it if you count animating lots of your objects you've made once you've cut them up!:D

cresshead
04-02-2008, 11:43 AM
just to take this thread back to the relms of off topic 3dsmax2009 and 3dsmax Design 2009 were both released this week

from my short time with the demo, i'd say it's a mixed bag of stunning, mediocre and 'daft bits' for this release.:offtopic:

frantbk
04-02-2008, 11:55 AM
I think you are wrong. It's been stated (without promise) that it's very likely to surface this year. And I don't see why not. Personally I think they're holding it back due to their misguided Mac affiliation and an equally misguided attempt at a simultaneous OSX/Win release of a 64-bit version. Instead of just getting that Windows version out and not hold it back because Apple messed up 64-bit on OSX, bigtime!

I don't disagree with you about that Apple connection. Most of the Modo users close to Lux switched to Intel/Mac's at 103/201, and when the beach ball thing happened Lux made such a big deal about. Lux hasn't given the PC anywhere near that much attention with PC problems. Also every chance Peelber has he's always talking up Apple, and yet he claim they are neutral about platforms:thumbsdow.

frantbk
04-02-2008, 11:58 AM
just to take this thread back to the relms of off topic 3dsmax2009 and 3dsmax Design 2009 were both released this week

from my short time with the demo, i'd say it's a mixed bag of stunning, mediocre and 'daft bits' for this release.:offtopic:

It maybe off topic, but any time I can find out something about a new product without having to run, I glad. Now that Lux charges money for the demo I'm not going to down load it (didn't someone in this thread say they spent $50?).

frantbk
04-02-2008, 12:04 PM
it was more like pay to support developing and than i decide not to pay for any other upgrade until animation tools come.... that didnt happen i didnt update.

If you think about it, someone that paid $895 for modo 101, and then $299.00 for modo 201,301, and now 302 (or 401). has $1792.00 invested in modo. By the time modo users have true animation/64-bit the investment will be pushing $2000.00. At that price who can't wait.

IgnusFast
04-02-2008, 02:09 PM
It maybe off topic, but any time I can find out something about a new product without having to run, I glad. Now that Lux charges money for the demo I'm not going to down load it (didn't someone in this thread say they spent $50?).

The demo costs $25... I paid it, but barely had time to use the demo before it expired. Another person in these forums said they'd paid for it on two different occasions. It's just not something I have that much time to play with when I have a perfectly functional LW to enjoy. :)

I still think a hard-coded 30-day time limit is rather draconian in this day and age, but hey, it's their code.

gerry_g
04-02-2008, 04:38 PM
If you think about it, someone that paid $895 for modo 101, and then $299.00 for modo 201,301, and now 302 (or 401). has $1792.00 invested in modo. By the time modo users have true animation/64-bit the investment will be pushing $2000.00. At that price who can't wait.

Yup that's me..........but I spent way more on Photoshop and Illustrator over the years so who's counting, not to mention that I bought into LW way back at version 7 (when it still cost something) and haven't missed an upgrade. So why do I have Modo, cos it beats LW hands down at some things or does things LW just doesn't do or does badly or are a p.i.t.a. to do. So why do I have Lightwave then ?, cos it beats Modo hands down at some things or does things Modo just doesn't do or does badly or are a p.i.t.a. to do.

Intuition
04-02-2008, 05:19 PM
......So why do I have Modo, cos it beats LW hands down at some things or does things LW just doesn't do or does badly or are a p.i.t.a. to do. So why do I have Lightwave then ?, cos it beats Modo hands down at some things or does things Modo just doesn't do or does badly or are a p.i.t.a. to do.

HAHA no truer statement has ever been said on the subject! :beerchug:

Gerry for the win! :D :thumbsup:

frantbk
04-02-2008, 05:38 PM
The demo costs $25... I paid it, but barely had time to use the demo before it expired. Another person in these forums said they'd paid for it on two different occasions. It's just not something I have that much time to play with when I have a perfectly functional LW to enjoy. :)

I still think a hard-coded 30-day time limit is rather draconian in this day and age, but hey, it's their code.

What supprised me is the sudden $25 cost for the demo. I think if you are trying to weed out people then just do it and be honest. Luxology's reasons (in the modcast) were thin and silly. Brad Peelber (the CEO of Lux) giving a home spun story about pulling up your bootstraps and sticking with it until the job is done was stupid. When was the last time someone walked in on the CEO, when he is screwing off with a demo, and said "You get back to work mister and get your CEO work done,...then, and only then can you play with that demo!" That was such a stupid story.

frantbk
04-02-2008, 05:44 PM
Yup that's me..........but I spent way more on Photoshop and Illustrator over the years so who's counting, not to mention that I bought into LW way back at version 7 (when it still cost something) and haven't missed an upgrade. So why do I have Modo, cos it beats LW hands down at some things or does things LW just doesn't do or does badly or are a p.i.t.a. to do. So why do I have Lightwave then ?, cos it beats Modo hands down at some things or does things Modo just doesn't do or does badly or are a p.i.t.a. to do.

I use to believe that was the way to go with software, but in the end all you do is run from, then to the other, then back again. NweTek, Lux seem to be looking for people that are above average skill with just one program - theirs and those are the people both companies seem to fawn over. Not the guy that keeps jumping back-an-forth.

IMI
04-03-2008, 07:48 PM
I use to believe that was the way to go with software, but in the end all you do is run from, then to the other, then back again. NweTek, Lux seem to be looking for people that are above average skill with just one program - theirs and those are the people both companies seem to fawn over. Not the guy that keeps jumping back-an-forth.


That's the only way to go with using software, particularly 3D software.
If either company is going to "fawn over" only people who are such diehard fans they will stick with one or the other even if it means they sacrifice quality or efficiency in certain aspects of a project, then they're going to have problems.
The guy who is "jumping back-an-forth" is in fact the guy whose issues need to be addressed most, although realistically no software company is ever likely to achieve such total perfection in an app that all others can be uninstalled and sold.
I think if you did a survey of the top CG professionals you'd find that all of them jump back and forth constantly between many similar programs in their work to achieve an end result consistent with their vision.

Hey, modo 302 has been released, a day early. :)

frantbk
04-03-2008, 09:14 PM
I doubt NweTek will be seeking modo users to fawn over, and I doubt Luxology will want Lightwave users. The ones that are above average in skill. While many of these user seem to have other programs they use to finish out a job. The difference is that the support programs are usually photoshop, combustion, zbrush; programs that have nothing to do with lightwave or modo. I think most of the top CG professionals your talking about are working in a group with large pipelines that require them to jump.

IMI
04-03-2008, 09:56 PM
I'd bet the vast majority of modo users are also either former or current LW users. The Luxology forum has a whole lot of reference to LightWave, as well as some very familiar user names.
As do all the other modo forums.
And in case you haven't noticed, there are a whole lot of us right here who use both. I don't see NT censoring these discussions, either.

Luxology does want LW users. And they're getting them, too. It's plainly evident in the fact that they have at least listened to what the LW users want out of modeling tools.



I think most of the top CG professionals your talking about are working in a group with large pipelines that require them to jump.


That's true, too, but what I was actually referring to is what gerry_g said about using what it takes for whatever reason.
If I'm modeling and I need some edge weighting or sliding do I tell myself I have to do this with LW, tedious as that may be (considering Modeler has no such tools), or do I import the model to modo where I can do it very quickly, then send it back to LW?

You seem to believe that one ought to stick with one program for some reason or other and just deal with its deficiencies. That especially makes no sense when trying to convince others that's the way to go about it.
And the speculation about whether Lux or NT "want" each other's users just doesn't make any sense. Far as I know, businesses are suppose to want all the business they can get.

riki
04-03-2008, 10:14 PM
Yeah I finally bought a copy of Modo. I really wanted to be able to paint and sculpt in a 3d package, plus I like the Tool-Pipe. I keep using Lightwave or course.

Captain Obvious
04-04-2008, 04:04 AM
I don't disagree with you about that Apple connection. Most of the Modo users close to Lux switched to Intel/Mac's at 103/201, and when the beach ball thing happened Lux made such a big deal about. Lux hasn't given the PC anywhere near that much attention with PC problems. Also every chance Peelber has he's always talking up Apple, and yet he claim they are neutral about platforms:thumbsdow.
They don't focus more on Mac-specific problems than they do on Windows-specific ones.



What supprised me is the sudden $25 cost for the demo. I think if you are trying to weed out people then just do it and be honest. Luxology's reasons (in the modcast) were thin and silly.
I haven't listened to the modcast and I'd obviously prefer a free demo, but just as an FYI: a friend of mine runs a (3D-related) website that hosts some pretty big files. He often has a few hundred downloads of gigabyte-sized files very quickly, often from the same IP address. The bandwidth requirements for hosting something big are just ridiculus. That COULD be the reason they have a non-free demo, but I obviously can't be sure.

Also, keep in mind that the demo is actually the FULL version, and you're allowed to use it for commercial work, etc. It is more like a 30-day rental of the full app rather than a demo. To be honest, it's a pretty good deal. That averages out to around $300 per year to rent a piece of $895 software.

hrgiger
04-04-2008, 07:39 AM
Yeah I finally bought a copy of Modo. I really wanted to be able to paint and sculpt in a 3d package, plus I like the Tool-Pipe. I keep using Lightwave or course.

You could have saved yourself about $800 and just gotten 3DCoat.

frantbk
04-04-2008, 07:41 AM
I'd bet the vast majority of modo users are also either former or current LW users. The Luxology forum has a whole lot of reference to LightWave, as well as some very familiar user names.
As do all the other modo forums.
And in case you haven't noticed, there are a whole lot of us right here who use both. I don't see NT censoring these discussions, either.
Luxology does want LW users. And they're getting them, too. It's plainly evident in the fact that they have at least listened to what the LW users want out of modeling tools.

You seem to believe that one ought to stick with one program for some reason or other and just deal with its deficiencies. That especially makes no sense when trying to convince others that's the way to go about it.
And the speculation about whether Lux or NT "want" each other's users just doesn't make any sense. Far as I know, businesses are suppose to want all the business they can get.

I think you've become too invested in this. What I'm talking about is jumping from one program to another because of the p.i.t.a. function. If one program has a tool function that the others do not then, yes it makes sense if you really need that function. What I'm talking about is the p.i.t.a. if you throw you hands up and give up just because the tool is a p.i.t.a. then you'll always be jumping.

frantbk
04-04-2008, 08:11 AM
They don't focus more on Mac-specific problems than they do on Windows-specific ones.

Seeing that a large group of modo PC users switched to the Intel/Mac about two years ago it should tell you something. As my late father once said: when you're thinking about buying a new car drive around and see which models there are the most of at the used car dealers. That will tell you what car's to stay away from.

If you reverse that and notice which machine is used the most on a 3D application but the current modo users then it is reasonable to say that modo is more Mac then PC, because if it wasn't, the there would be an equal number of users on both machines. Therefore, because many long time PC people switched to Macs when they became heavy modo users it is reasonable to say modo is more of a mac app. then PC.

frantbk
04-04-2008, 08:18 AM
I haven't listened to the modcast and I'd obviously prefer a free demo, but just as an FYI: a friend of mine runs a (3D-related) website that hosts some pretty big files. He often has a few hundred downloads of gigabyte-sized files very quickly, often from the same IP address. The bandwidth requirements for hosting something big are just ridiculus. That COULD be the reason they have a non-free demo, but I obviously can't be sure.

Also, keep in mind that the demo is actually the FULL version, and you're allowed to use it for commercial work, etc. It is more like a 30-day rental of the full app rather than a demo. To be honest, it's a pretty good deal. That averages out to around $300 per year to rent a piece of $895 software.

Because Alan hastings has stated that be believes box products are dead, and Lux has complained (in print/modcast) about the cost of boxed modo; it is really an issue that the possible customer/customers should have to deal with. Add to this the fact that there is over 10 years of band-width issue preceding the current high cost of download luxology is just trying to con everyone into believing that that should matter to them. The fact is you have high cost with boxed products and you have high cost with downloading. Lux believes that people will put up with almost any cr.. from them because their product is hot. They want to weed out people that keep looking at modo but refuse to buy because of the limited tools/functions compared to other products.

frantbk
04-04-2008, 08:23 AM
Also, keep in mind that the demo is actually the FULL version, and you're allowed to use it for commercial work, etc. It is more like a 30-day rental of the full app rather than a demo. To be honest, it's a pretty good deal. That averages out to around $300 per year to rent a piece of $895 software.

Softimage XSI, Zbrush, any program that only needs a key to unlock the program is a full version. The only difference is that Lux is to lazy to install a lock like the other companies. There is nothing special about modo's full application statues. Luxology is just too lazy to lock it. Check the Luxology forum you will see that this isn't the first time Lux has demonstrated their greed factor.

Carmel
04-04-2008, 03:41 PM
I do a little animation, a little modeling, and some OpenGL programming at an Aerospace company. I have to move models between software packages a lot. Been using LW for a while. Tried modo out a few years ago. Still own both packages. Liked modo at first. UI was was nice. Modeling features were beyond LW. modo is right-handed, LW is left (don't like that). LW uses unconventional material definitions which don't translate into other formats well. modo's materials are more conventional. For a while I tried to make modo my mainstream modeler. It didn't work out because it was extremely unstable. Had to save my work after every other command. modo was crashing frequently. I recall that simply changing layers would cause it to crash. So I gave up on it. But that was ~2 years ago. Hopefully Luxology has worked out those bugs. Concerning support, Luxology never has anyone answering calls live. You have to leave a message. About 3/4 of my calls to them have never been returned. Almost all of my calls to Newtek have been answered live or returned. My last call to Newtek is the only one that was never returned (they couldn't answer the question live and told me they'd get back to me which never happened). The LW modeler has been fairly static since I first learned it. The plug-in situation is chaotic. I was excited to see the advances made in modo. One of these days I'll try modo again. If it's stable it will become my modeler.

digefxgrp
04-04-2008, 06:56 PM
For a while I tried to make modo my mainstream modeler. It didn't work out because it was extremely unstable. Had to save my work after every other command. modo was crashing frequently. I recall that simply changing layers would cause it to crash. So I gave up on it. But that was ~2 years ago. Hopefully Luxology has worked out those bugs.

This is still the case for me as of 301. Do something...then save. Do something ...then save. For the most part Modo's's become nothing more than my advanced edge beveling plugin for LW.

Well, today 302 was released and I see in their "what's new" list a whole bevy of bug fixes. Guess I'll find out this weekend if overall stability was one of those improvements.

Bottom line is I still use LW as my primary modeling package and with the 3rd party guys continually bringing out those cool little plugins, my need for Modo gets less and less as time goes by.


The LW modeler has been fairly static since I first learned it. The plug-in situation is chaotic.

I see LW's plugin situation being far from "chaotic". Matter fact...the total opposite. A whole lot of the tools I use in Modeler are from 3rd party sources, they work flawlessly, and flat out get the job done.
That's yet another frustration I find in Modo. Even with it's so called advanced toolset I find there are many things lacking that I have available in my LW Modeler toolshed.

riki
04-05-2008, 01:42 AM
You could have saved yourself about $800 and just gotten 3DCoat.

I don't think they make a Mac version.

frantbk
04-05-2008, 08:07 AM
The only think I'm going to say right now about the modo 302 release is: That it doesn't seem to be much of an upgrade. 14 new features, 109 improvement, and 80 bugfixes. The way I see this is that modo users have 14 new features and 189 bugfixes. I think SpinDoctor Brad is fudging some improvement to cover up on just how buggy modo had become.

Mike_RB
04-05-2008, 08:34 AM
The only think I'm going to say right now about the modo 302 release is: That it doesn't seem to be much of an upgrade.

Good thing the usefulness of the 302 upgrade to me isn't effected by your opinion.

cresshead
04-05-2008, 08:56 AM
They don't focus more on Mac-specific problems than they do on Windows-specific ones.



I haven't listened to the modcast and I'd obviously prefer a free demo, but just as an FYI: a friend of mine runs a (3D-related) website that hosts some pretty big files. He often has a few hundred downloads of gigabyte-sized files very quickly, often from the same IP address. The bandwidth requirements for hosting something big are just ridiculus. That COULD be the reason they have a non-free demo, but I obviously can't be sure.

Also, keep in mind that the demo is actually the FULL version, and you're allowed to use it for commercial work, etc. It is more like a 30-day rental of the full app rather than a demo. To be honest, it's a pretty good deal. That averages out to around $300 per year to rent a piece of $895 software.


so can you buy the demo more than once for your pc and in essence 'rent it'?
for instance could i apy$25 and use it in may 2008 then go buy/spend another $25 and use it in june2008 on the same pc?

that would be like subscription without an initial purchase

IMI
04-05-2008, 09:09 AM
so can you buy the demo more than once for your pc and in essence 'rent it'?
for instance could i apy$25 and use it in may 2008 then go buy/spend another $25 and use it in june2008 on the same pc?

that would be like subscription without an initial purchase

Yeah, that seems to be the way it works. The $25.00 demo is in fact the full deal, content, docs, video docs and video tutorials, all included. Somewhere around 3 gigs of stuff. Plus of course the In Focus videos, and now with 302, the new videos from Andy Brown, The "Spotlight" series. High quality stuff. :)
And yes, you can pay that 25 dollar fee for a 30 day full license, use it for 30 days, let it lapse, then renew later on, I suppose as long as they do it this way.

Carmel
04-05-2008, 11:52 AM
I see LW's plugin situation being far from "chaotic". Matter fact...the total opposite. A whole lot of the tools I use in Modeler are from 3rd party sources, they work flawlessly, and flat out get the job done.
That's yet another frustration I find in Modo. Even with it's so called advanced toolset I find there are many things lacking that I have available in my LW Modeler toolshed. It's nice that there are many parties contributing LW plugins. It would be cleaner if Newtek was developing these capabilities and building them into their modeler as documented features.

Cageman
04-05-2008, 11:22 PM
It's nice that there are many parties contributing LW plugins. It would be cleaner if Newtek was developing these capabilities and building them into their modeler as documented features.

Sure... but quite unrealistic as well. There will always be tools and workflows that is made up by third party and NT simply can't cover ALL grounds. With that said, NT should become more active in the third party community, such as actually hosting and supporting free plugins and scripts.

frantbk
04-06-2008, 03:35 PM
Good thing the usefulness of the 302 upgrade to me isn't effected by your opinion.

Okay, I'll bite. Explained to me which of the new features, enhancements, the modo program has that will lead to better animation in 401. While I will agree that for the archviz people the "Natural lighting can now be easily added to your scene by the new Physical Sky and Physical Sun features that let you get physically-based daylight depending on your scene?s real world location." is something they've been asking for; this isn't the type of tool to use as the lead in for 302.

I believe Bryce has had something like this since Bryce 3/4. Autodesk's 3DViz has had this since the late 1990's, and I know Mojoworld has this tools set. It is a tool set that's been around for about 12 years. Example to me where Luxology has enhanced this 12 year old tool set, what is so great about it? Three, or more programs have this tool set.

I see the lead in of their natural lighting as a nod to the archviz people that Lux is listening to them (after 3 years of complaining).

Mike_RB
04-06-2008, 03:55 PM
Okay, I'll bite. Explained to me which of the new features, enhancements, the modo program has that will lead to better animation in 401.

Did I say anything about 401? Or about better animation? Or about leading in anything? I just said that the usefulness of the upgrade was not dependant on your opinion of it, as I find it quite useful. The selection border action center is one for sure. I've used that for a ton of tricky little modelling fixes on Iron Man. Since it's an addition to the tool pipe it extends the usefulness of the entire modelling toolset as it can be mixed and matched with the rest of the elements of the tool pipe. Selection border falloff is another very useful little addition. (These are bundled together into a preset called the 'flex tool').

All I was saying is that your opinion formed from reading the feature list of the upgrade is of zero value to me, the upgrade itself however does have a positive value. Make sense? I've been using 302 in production since October in one form or another and it's made working and finishing Iron Man a treat.

Michael

IMI
04-06-2008, 04:07 PM
I wouldn't worry about it - frantbk's opinion seems to be as misinformed as it is slanted.
"SpinDoctor Brad"? (from post #154 in this thread)

To go out of one's way to create such a label seems to imply some sort of negative pre-conceived bias. ;)

frantbk
04-06-2008, 05:19 PM
Did I say anything about 401?

All I was saying is that your opinion formed from reading the feature list of the upgrade is of zero value to me, the upgrade itself however does have a positive value. Make sense? I've been using 302 in production since October in one form or another and it's made working and finishing Iron Man a treat.

Michael

Seeing that the ultimate goal Luxology has stated since modo 101 is to make a complete package. Then it is reasonable to ask what does modo 302 do to further that goal. The fact that you seen unable to answer a simple question about modo 302's contribution to that goal seems strange. You are a modo user, but you can't answer that simple question? Maybe it is because there really isn't any true contribution of the 302 package to the ultimate goal of a full featured modo package.

Once again, "you been using modo since October" and you can't answer such a simple question? I think what I've said about modo stands, people that are not modo Fanboy's will not see this as another level to the ultimate goal. I think in time many people will call 302 the cleanup release of many problems that have plagued modo since 103.

Maybe you guys should call SpinDoctor Brad and see if he can write up some answers for the question asked. :devil::D

RedBull
04-06-2008, 07:57 PM
Seeing that the ultimate goal Luxology has stated since modo 101 is to make a complete package. Then it is reasonable to ask what does modo 302 do to further that goal. The fact that you seen unable to answer a simple question about modo 302's contribution to that goal seems strange.

Seems strange that you would ask a Modo user on a LW forum such question, if you were really concerned or curious, would the Modo forums not be a better place to ask such a question?

Being a point release, it really should have nothing to do with 401, or future plans, it's a necessary stability release with a few enhanced features for usability enhancements that many will find useful.

And despite your posts becoming more trollish by the second, i will bite and take the time to answer.


You are a modo user, but you can't answer that simple question? Maybe it is because there really isn't any true contribution of the 302 package to the ultimate goal of a full featured modo package.

Well despite only using 302 for a few hours, several features that are useful are things like the enhanced dope-sheet/track which is an enhancement to the animation side and will be a basis for an even better implementation later on. But features I've personally asked for such as displacement improvements and scene complexity, Modo does handle more polys, and the displacements only have to calculate the camera FOV and not beyond. These are significant. The File I/O SDK is also a step forward, Although i cannot seem to find where it was installed at the moment.


I think what I've said about modo stands, people that are not modo Fanboy's will not see this as another level to the ultimate goal. I think in time many people will call 302 the cleanup release of many problems that have plagued modo since 103.

To a certain extent, it is a maintainance release with a few enhancemnets, I don't think anyone expected 302 to be 401, nor did anyone seem to think it was going to be, apart from yourself. However, I'm quite disappointed by the bugs and stability I've already encountered in 302, Modo just crashed as i was trying to delete a custom form. This has been a problem since Modo 201, and it's still an absolute joke. Another Lathe bug which is still not fixed, and several other outstanding issues... I'm just stunned to still see them. I really hope 303 comes quickly.

But this release should really be a refinement of the new tools introduced with 301 such as sculpting etc... And indeed there has been some..... But the stability is Modo's biggest issue for myself, and while i can see some improvements Lux certainly need a better bug system and more frequent fixes.


Maybe you guys should call SpinDoctor Brad and see if he can write up some answers for the question asked. :devil::D

I don't see the questions you asked as being very important, or questions that others are asking.. You just seem to be making pointless arguments which seem irrelevant to the other points raised in these threads... (IMHO) I'm a little disappointed that they missed a lot of bugs/issues, but I'm happy with the bugs and issues that were addressed.

IMI
04-06-2008, 08:04 PM
...And despite your posts becoming more trollish by the second, i will bite and take the time to answer....

I don't see the questions you asked as being very important, or questions that others are asking.. You just seem to be making pointless arguments which seem irrelevant to the other points raised in these threads...


Thank you, that's alot nicer and more diplomatic than the reply I typed an hour ago but didn't post. ;)

I don't recall Lux saying modo 302 would be the be-all, end-all full 3D solution. I do think though they're well on their way.

Mike_RB
04-06-2008, 09:23 PM
Frank: I said I've been using modo 302 since october. I've been using modo since before 101 was released.

Redbull's post answered some of your questions, 302 is a maintenance update with some feature improvement to what was released in 301 (sculpting + animation)

Redbull, please send me some specific steps for both the lathe bug and the form crash (if reproduceable). I'll make sure they are in their system. To be honest I don't do a whole lot of form customization, and I don't think I've ever lathed anything, so I wouldn't have hit those...

Michael

digefxgrp
04-06-2008, 09:54 PM
To Mike_RB:

What platform are you running Modo on? It seems most people I talk to or see postings from that have stability issues (like myself) are using Windows.

I was hoping to install 302 this weekend but got tied up with project changes so I won't be doing the upgrade until I get these new fires put out.

LW as well as all my other major software tools all run fine...it just seems to be Modo.

Snosrap
04-06-2008, 10:07 PM
But the stability is Modo's biggest issue for myself, and while i can see some improvements Lux certainly need a better bug system and more frequent fixes.

Most definitely! The Shader Tree is a bugger as well, not only in being buggy but in its user friendliness. I won't deny its power, but as easy as it is to get great looking renders out of modo, it is a pain to work in the shader tree - so for me anyway its not working out to good. Even in 302 you still cannot copy and paste layers in the shader tree. Modeling is OK, but I'm way faster in LW and I find myself opening modo for edge beveling and UV mapping. Also translating geometry at off angles in modo is a dream with the various action centers, but otherwise Modeler still holds its own IMO although it needs a major cleanup.

Cheers
Snosrap

Captain Obvious
04-07-2008, 05:44 AM
If you reverse that and notice which machine is used the most on a 3D application but the current modo users then it is reasonable to say that modo is more Mac then PC, because if it wasn't, the there would be an equal number of users on both machines. Therefore, because many long time PC people switched to Macs when they became heavy modo users it is reasonable to say modo is more of a mac app. then PC.
The modo userbase is approximately 40 % Mac OS X and 60 % Windows.




Softimage XSI, Zbrush, any program that only needs a key to unlock the program is a full version. The only difference is that Lux is to lazy to install a lock like the other companies. There is nothing special about modo's full application statues. Luxology is just too lazy to lock it. Check the Luxology forum you will see that this isn't the first time Lux has demonstrated their greed factor.
I don't know about the rest of you, but I think modo has one of the best licensing methods available. Install a single licence file you can download, and it will just work. No need to request a key from Luxology for each machine you want to install or on or anything of the sort. I fail to see the problem wit hthie licencing method.

It seems to me that you're just complaining about modo. Why bother? If you don't like it, DON'T BUY IT! It really is that simple. I like modo, I find it useful, and I model way faster in it than I do in LW Modeler. The bottom line is that the money I spent on modo, I've recouped several times over. Money well spent. 302 is a free upgrade and adds useful stuff to it, performance improvements and bug fixes (yes, modo has bugs, something "Spindoctor Brad" readily admits). I don't need to ask myself what 302 does to further the "401 goal" -- all I need to ask myself is how modo 302 furthers MY OWN goals, which it does by generally being better than 301.



so can you buy the demo more than once for your pc and in essence 'rent it'?
for instance could i apy$25 and use it in may 2008 then go buy/spend another $25 and use it in june2008 on the same pc?

that would be like subscription without an initial purchase
I don't think you can keep repurchasing the demo, though. If you could, it'd probably work out to be cheaper than actually buying the full thing.

frantbk
04-07-2008, 06:31 AM
Seems strange that you would ask a Modo user on a LW forum such question, if you were really concerned or curious, would the Modo forums not be a better place to ask such a question?

This thread is about a lightwave user being hijacked by modo. Any and all question about how and why modo could hijack a lightwave user is valid.


Being a point release, it really should have nothing to do with 401, or future plans, it's a necessary stability release with a few enhanced features for usability enhancements that many will find useful.

Which supports everything I've said. That modo 302 is a cleanup release and doesn't do anything to reach the ultimate goal of a full package. More importantly if you read the Jay Roth thread you see people are asking the question: Does NewTek need to include new features if it is a point release and it is free? Do lightwave users have the right to expectations of new features when new features cost NT in R&D? The modo 302 release is a good example of that.


And despite your posts becoming more trollish by the second, i will bite and take the time to answer. .

:hey::(:rolleyes::cry::cry::cry::argue::screwy::sl eeping::tsktsk:




Well despite only using 302 for a few hours, several features that are useful are things like the enhanced dope-sheet/track which is an enhancement to the animation side and will be a basis for an even better implementation later on. But features I've personally asked for such as displacement improvements and scene complexity, Modo does handle more polys, and the displacements only have to calculate the camera FOV and not beyond. These are significant. The File I/O SDK is also a step forward, Although i cannot seem to find where it was installed at the moment.

Wow, once again want to answer the question asked about the 12 year old tool set that is the lead-in for the 302 release. What are the chances that these are all the tools that you use? million-to-one?




To a certain extent, it is a maintainance release with a few enhancemnets, I don't think anyone expected 302 to be 401, nor did anyone seem to think it was going to be, apart from yourself. However, I'm quite disappointed by the bugs and stability I've already encountered in 302, Modo just crashed as i was trying to delete a custom form. This has been a problem since Modo 201, and it's still an absolute joke. Another Lathe bug which is still not fixed, and several other outstanding issues... I'm just stunned to still see them. I really hope 303 comes quickly.

Wow, 109 improvements, and 80 bugfixes and you still have the same complaints from modo 201. So you need another free upgrade? what was the chances of that, a million-to-one, or just the same old, same old from Lux: One step forward, three steps back.


But this release should really be a refinement of the new tools introduced with 301 such as sculpting etc... And indeed there has been some..... But the stability is Modo's biggest issue for myself, and while i can see some improvements Lux certainly need a better bug system and more frequent fixes.

Wow (I can't think of anything else to start my sentence with :D), The same problem that has plagued modo since 102.


I don't see the questions you asked as being very important, or questions that others are asking.. You just seem to be making pointless arguments which seem irrelevant to the other points raised in these threads... (IMHO) I'm a little disappointed that they missed a lot of bugs/issues, but I'm happy with the bugs and issues that were addressed.

That is because you don't want to look at modo from a big picture. Any lightwave user can pick out a dozen different things that are good about lightwave any time during any release. That doesn't that release has any long term effect on quality of lightwave. In fact what it can mean is just another dead tool set farther down the road. Can we agree that many of the plug-ins in lightwave need improvements. If so then just have new features isn't enough these days. Having new features that the companies will maintain and improve should mean more then Wow we have another new feature.

frantbk
04-07-2008, 06:41 AM
The modo userbase is approximately 40 % Mac OS X and 60 % Windows.

That is information from Luxology? If not you need to state the source of your information so the rest of us can cross check that.


I don't know about the rest of you, but I think modo has one of the best licensing methods available. Install a single licence file you can download, and it will just work. No need to request a key from Luxology for each machine you want to install or on or anything of the sort. I fail to see the problem wit hthie licencing method.

What is the point?


It seems to me that you're just complaining about modo. Why bother? If you don't like it, DON'T BUY IT! It really is that simple. I like modo, I find it useful, and I model way faster in it than I do in LW Modeler. The bottom line is that the money I spent on modo, I've recouped several times over. Money well spent. 302 is a free upgrade and adds useful stuff to it, performance improvements and bug fixes (yes, modo has bugs, something "Spindoctor Brad" readily admits). I don't need to ask myself what 302 does to further the "401 goal" -- all I need to ask myself is how modo 302 furthers MY OWN goals, which it does by generally being better than 301.

Because this is a thread about being hijack by modo :D. Should I call the FBI because the word hijack was used? Once again you and the others have yet to invalid the overall picture of modo for anyone else but die hard modo people.


I don't think you can keep repurchasing the demo, though. If you could, it'd probably work out to be cheaper than actually buying the full thing.

Seeing that the pre-order upgrade is $299.00 and you quote $300. Yeah, we can agree on that.

frantbk
04-07-2008, 06:44 AM
Most definitely! The Shader Tree is a bugger as well, not only in being buggy but in its user friendliness. I won't deny its power, but as easy as it is to get great looking renders out of modo, it is a pain to work in the shader tree - so for me anyway its not working out to good. Even in 302 you still cannot copy and paste layers in the shader tree. Modeling is OK, but I'm way faster in LW and I find myself opening modo for edge beveling and UV mapping. Also translating geometry at off angles in modo is a dream with the various action centers, but otherwise Modeler still holds its own IMO although it needs a major cleanup.

Cheers
Snosrap

I just got accused of being trollish for talk like that, you need to tone it down here at the Luxology,...Oooh that's right this is the NewTek web site :devil: :D. Sorry my bad, carry on.

Captain Obvious
04-07-2008, 06:55 AM
That is information from Luxology? If not you need to state the source of your information so the rest of us can cross check that.
Yes, that's from Luxology.



What is the point?
You said Luxology's licensing method is bad. I say it's good.



Seeing that the pre-order upgrade is $299.00 and you quote $300. Yeah, we can agree on that.
There's nothing on Luxology's store that's $299.00. The upgrade to 301/302 from earlier versions is $395.00, and the full version is $895.00.



I just got accused of being trollish for talk like that, you need to tone it down here at the Luxology,...Oooh that's right this is the NewTek web site . Sorry my bad, carry on.
No, you got accused of being trollish because you're slinging poo at Luxology for no apparent reason.

frantbk
04-07-2008, 09:24 AM
Yes, that's from Luxology. what year was that quote from? 2006?


You said Luxology's licensing method is bad. I say it's good.

No it is no better then any other scheme. If you look at the problems Lux was complaining about, about the demo, about their database having phantom accounts, about the corruption of their customer database because of all the phantom accounts to download the demo. Then it is reasonable to say the surcharge for the demo was reactionary to curb the customers setting up multiple accounts to run the demo. So Lux is saying that their licensing method has its problems, and don't forget the extra license that Lux talk people into buying (about six months ago).


There's nothing on Luxology's store that's $299.00. The upgrade to 301/302 from earlier versions is $395.00, and the full version is $895.00.

Unless Lux has changed their pricing, most demo users receive an email (at the end of the 30 days) quoting $299.00 US dollars to buy modo. Also I believe I quoted the pre-order price for modo 302. :question:


No, you got accused of being trollish because you're slinging poo at Luxology for no apparent reason.

You and may other modo users have slung poo at NewTek under the disguise being Lightwave users. Just because you use lightwave doesn't give you the right to sling poo at NewTek. The poo you keep talking about is one persons view of Lux, so who are you or anyone else that has the right to be the poo police. NewTek is the only one that has that right.

Steamthrower
04-07-2008, 10:36 AM
How about this little rule:

A PROGRAM IS WORTH WHATEVER SOMEONE WILLINGLY PAYS FOR IT.

Stjepanovic
04-07-2008, 10:44 AM
I think these threads go off into bashing or ?derailment'. I would say modo has amazing new modern & flexible interface, alas it?s not the only one. I am a beginner-to-intermediate user of Blender and I certify that you can customize anything in Blender from fonts, windows and function tabs, just as much as in Modo. This is one of the strongest elements of Modo compared to other 3D applications including LW. At first it seems daunting but soon you will get hold of it and realize that you can create interface that is best suited to your needs, literally. Ok that's one thing. Other winning points are more polished and sorted out tools although there is a little discovery to be made. Edges, Vertexes, or Polys are all equally treated by all general commands or functions. Basically move, push, bevel, extrude, or extend work the same way with diffrent topologies. There is a slight confusion btwn let?s say smooth shift and thicken operator for exmple since they are overlapping in terms of functionality, a kind of problem we have in Modeler. Afterall founders of Modo are founders of the original LW modeler code.
There are many commands that are combination of different setups rather than entirely different operator commands. For some people this is a boon while others probably do not appreciate. For example, I do not think that new 'Snap Tools' introduced in Modo 301 match the power of LWCad snap tools at all. One is intuitive (LWCad) the other is more awkward m?lange of different setup and operators. However, Modo boasts amazing UV tools (LW weak point), Texture Painting (non existent) and Rendering engine. No doubt about this. Super fast and model looks great in no time. In fact if you have extra $$ this is a real plug-in for LW although there are other indispensable ones. In terms of the new concept of modeling ?a la? Zbrush (they first introduced it) it?s great but it?s not at the level of Zbrush or Mudpie (ups? sorry Mudbox) ZBrush is simply amazing and it still works on G4 Mac 1gig of Ram! Incredible. The prowess of sculpt tools in Modo is closer to Blender grade sculpting tools. Yes, Blender tools are simpler but just as powerful.
Lastly, Modo is a fresh application. It made huge strides from 101 in the past 3.5 years. It was slow start at the beginning but unbelievable progress. In lot ways I still prefer LW and of course if you animate anything, LW is the tool for you, as other blogers have already explained. The only problem that I have in the development of Modo is that it imitates too much LW and its progress. Everything is very similar. I think it?s a wrong strategy
I definately think Modo beats Silo, Hexagon at most levels, and in certain areas Zbrush and Mudbox.
But it's still not in the category with LW, XSI, Maya & 3DStuMax. It's getting there. I am not sure if this is the right direction. Price is definately refecting this since it is steadily growing. I was lucky to get it when it looked more like experimental project. I am not sure if I would spend 895 now for it. Maybe if I had money to throw :thumbsup::lwicon:

Captain Obvious
04-07-2008, 11:07 AM
what year was that quote from? 2006?
2007, I think. It was a post on their forums.




No it is no better then any other scheme.
That's a matter of opinion. I like the fact that it doesn't rely on any hardware lock or hardware ID or anything. The same license file will work on ANY machine, without having to contact Luxology. As long as I have a backup of the license file and the modo installer, I can buy a new machine and install modo on it without having to contact Luxology about it. Same thing with Lightwave, except I need to stick a dongle in the USB port. I like Lightwave's method too.




Unless Lux has changed their pricing, most demo users receive an email (at the end of the 30 days) quoting $299.00 US dollars to buy modo. Also I believe I quoted the pre-order price for modo 302. :question:
I don't know. I got it ages ago, so I have no idea anymore.




You and may other modo users have slung poo at NewTek under the disguise being Lightwave users. Just because you use lightwave doesn't give you the right to sling poo at NewTek. The poo you keep talking about is one persons view of Lux, so who are you or anyone else that has the right to be the poo police. NewTek is the only one that has that right.
Eh, I beg to disagree. I use Lightwave because I think it's a pretty good application. If I disliked Lightwave as much as you dislike modo, I wouldn't be using it, or posting at these forums.




A PROGRAM IS WORTH WHATEVER SOMEONE WILLINGLY PAYS FOR IT.
This is true. Goooo market economy!

frantbk
04-08-2008, 11:23 AM
2007, I think. It was a post on their forums.

I believe this is more in the 2005-2006. This data is about 2-to-3 years old and does not reflect the Mac/Intel gains.



Eh, I beg to disagree. I use Lightwave because I think it's a pretty good application. If I disliked Lightwave as much as you dislike modo, I wouldn't be using it, or posting at these forums.

Which has nothing to do with modo users coming to the lightwave forum and pumping up modo. This is the NewTek forum, they sell lightwave, not modo. Therefore, modo should not, and does not have protection from criticism here. The fact that a fair question was asked about the new lead-in feature for modo 302 has never been addressed by the modo/lightwave users should be something of a red flag about the selective attitude of modo's capabilites. If modo is just a product, a tool, then talking about its capabilities shouldn't be a problem; unless you think of modo as a person instead of an object. Modo is a tool, but the modo/lightwave users think in terms of a person (modo) that needs their protection.

Because no one is willing to answer the fair question about the lead-in feature; it can be said that my state is still true. That the modo 302 release does not have that much for the majority of modo users.

Cageman
04-08-2008, 12:04 PM
Being a point release, it really should have nothing to do with 401, or future plans, it's a necessary stability release with a few enhanced features for usability enhancements that many will find useful.

Word! First of all, I really don't understand the negativity towards Modo!? It's a great tool... and no, I'm not using it (but pretty much all the modeling-dudes at work do). I don't see where Modo would be usefull for me right now, but the negative ranting about Modo is really strange since it does alot of stuff that Modeler doesn't do, and it has a very good renderer, btw.

Alot of the negative ranting about Modo in this thread could be copied and pasted in a negative rant about LW9.x...

Both programs are here to stay. Let's make the most out of both! No?

Captain Obvious
04-08-2008, 02:22 PM
I believe this is more in the 2005-2006. This data is about 2-to-3 years old and does not reflect the Mac/Intel gains.
It's come up in conversation a few times. I'm sure you can find something on the Lux forums if you try.





The fact that a fair question was asked about the new lead-in feature for modo 302 has never been addressed by the modo/lightwave users should be something of a red flag about the selective attitude of modo's capabilites.
What was your question, again?

Mike_RB
04-08-2008, 02:38 PM
Explained to me which of the new features, enhancements, the modo program has that will lead to better animation in 401. While I will agree that for the archviz people the "Natural lighting can now be easily added to your scene by the new Physical Sky and Physical Sun features that let you get physically-based daylight depending on your scene?s real world location." is something they've been asking for; this isn't the type of tool to use as the lead in for 302.

I believe Bryce has had something like this since Bryce 3/4. Autodesk's 3DViz has had this since the late 1990's, and I know Mojoworld has this tools set. It is a tool set that's been around for about 12 years. Example to me where Luxology has enhanced this 12 year old tool set, what is so great about it? Three, or more programs have this tool set.

I see the lead in of their natural lighting as a nod to the archviz people that Lux is listening to them (after 3 years of complaining).

I think that's his question. He wants named features that would point directly to advancing 301 towards 401 contained within the 302 update.

But he's not going to get any, the features lux added rounded out 301 and were conservative enough not to break a whole bunch of stuff and set them back in the stability department. It dosen't make the 302 update any less useful, it just dosen't take any leaps towards what he imagines is on the list of features for 401/501.

frantbk
04-08-2008, 04:58 PM
Alot of the negative ranting about Modo in this thread could be copied and pasted in a negative rant about LW9.x...


There's the point. Many of the modo users are saying that NewTek has bought plug-ins that were put in Lightwave and then support stopped, enhancements stopped. A large number of modo users are saying NewTek has to have those plug-in fixed before 10. NewTek from now on has to R&D their own tool sets instead of buying up tool sets and so on.

All of the complaints about lightwave from 8.x backwards were not implemented by the new development team at NewTek. Yet they are being held to a high standard. Luxology's core team is the team that gave you the current problem with lightwave. What have the Lux team done with modo 302? They included a 12 year tool set ( which is the lead new tool of 302) that are not enhanced over the current one on other 3D packages. If someone points this out they're negative about modo. The Lightwave/Modo users have a blind eye towards modo, but a hard eye towards lightwave and the new development team.

The new team didn't cause the current problems. If you are going to be hard on them, then fair is to be just as hard on the Luxology team about modo releases.

frantbk
04-08-2008, 05:05 PM
I think that's his question. He wants named features that would point directly to advancing 301 towards 401 contained within the 302 update.

But he's not going to get any, the features lux added rounded out 301 and were conservative enough not to break a whole bunch of stuff and set them back in the stability department. It dosen't make the 302 update any less useful, it just dosen't take any leaps towards what he imagines is on the list of features for 401/501.

Just show me what is different about the new lead feature from the other 3D packages that has this 12 year tool set. What is new and improved? You guys complain about NewTek dumping tools into lightwave and then letting them rot. It can be said that Luxology is doing the same thing with the modo 302 release.

Mike_RB
04-08-2008, 05:16 PM
Just show me what is different about the new lead feature from the other 3D packages that has this 12 year tool set. What is new and improved? You guys complain about NewTek dumping tools into lightwave and then letting them rot. It can be said that Luxology is doing the same thing with the modo 302 release.

Selection border action center. New 302 feature, extends all of modo's tools originally implemented in 101 and doesn't exist (As far as I know) in any other app.

frantbk
04-08-2008, 08:56 PM
Selection border action center. New 302 feature, extends all of modo's tools originally implemented in 101 and doesn't exist (As far as I know) in any other app.

:tsktsk: :tsktsk: :tsktsk: :tsktsk:

Once again, trying to avoid the question asked. That is not the lead feature tool.

:tsktsk: :tsktsk: :tsktsk: :tsktsk:

Mike_RB
04-08-2008, 09:19 PM
:tsktsk: :tsktsk: :tsktsk: :tsktsk:

Once again, trying to avoid the question asked. That is not the lead feature tool.

:tsktsk: :tsktsk: :tsktsk: :tsktsk:

Maybe this is a language problem. 'the lead feature tool' doesn't mean anything to me. Please define 'the lead feature tool' and maybe I can help. If you're asking for something like particles or IK then you really don't understand the point of these maintenance releases to refine and stabilize.

frantbk
04-09-2008, 09:58 AM
Maybe this is a language problem. 'the lead feature tool' doesn't mean anything to me. Please define 'the lead feature tool' and maybe I can help. If you're asking for something like particles or IK then you really don't understand the point of these maintenance releases to refine and stabilize.

Implemented Physical Sky and Physical Sun rendering options. Sun position is based on its time and place channel values (sun position defaults to Luxology world headquarters). A custom luminal function allows sunlight to use solar intensity and color from Physical Sky model when sun position is enabled. The size of solar disc (when viewing the sun itself) is adjustable. Sky haze can be set. A “north” channel is provided to change orientation of physical world in relation
to physical sun.

This tool set is the 12 year old feature that is, I believe, in 3DViz (first implemented) and is also in Bryce (started in ver. 3/4) and is in Mojoworld (I think).

gerry_g
04-09-2008, 10:21 AM
Careful ladies you'll muss your hairdo's thwacking one another so hard with your handbags....... Well at least in Modo you don't have to go tun of the physical sun in the lights options shadow settings (of all places) to get rid of their nasty hard black edges, and I think thats one of the reasons people keep referencing Lightwave against Modo is because Modo feels (a lot of the time) more consistent, Lightwave has never really been properly consolidated and rationalized, it's not that Modo's better cos in many ways I don't think it is, just a nagging feeling it's what LW could have been.

Mike_RB
04-09-2008, 10:28 AM
Implemented Physical Sky and Physical Sun rendering options. Sun position is based on its time and place channel values (sun position defaults to Luxology world headquarters). A custom luminal function allows sunlight to use solar intensity and color from Physical Sky model when sun position is enabled. The size of solar disc (when viewing the sun itself) is adjustable. Sky haze can be set. A “north” channel is provided to change orientation of physical world in relation
to physical sun.

This tool set is the 12 year old feature that is, I believe, in 3DViz (first implemented) and is also in Bryce (started in ver. 3/4) and is in Mojoworld (I think).

Alright, I now get what you're saying. You're saying that everything Luxology adds to modo to fill holes in the workflow has to be things that aren't in any other app, anywhere. I think you're going to be continually disappointed with modo then.

frantbk
04-09-2008, 11:48 AM
Alright, I now get what you're saying. You're saying that everything Luxology adds to modo to fill holes in the workflow has to be things that aren't in any other app, anywhere. I think you're going to be continually disappointed with modo then.

:oye: :twak: :cursin:
No, once again you've missed my point. Gerry_g, theend pickup on what I'm saying. Lightwave has Dpoint, modo has, whatever this thing is called. They came up with questions about the difference of the two tool sets. A major complaint Lightwave/modo users have is the plug-in issue the NewTek. NT bought up plug-ins instead of R&Ding new fresh tool sets, and many of the plug-ins are just sitting in lightwave. No improvements/enhancements. Is Luxology doing the same with the 302 release? Mike_RB you have modo 302, you've got the new feature so tell me what you think is good an bad about it. I'm willing to agree with you modo guys, but only if you're willing to talk about the tools and not just say modo is this good because I use it. :deal:

Captain Obvious
04-09-2008, 11:51 AM
This tool set is the 12 year old feature that is, I believe, in 3DViz (first implemented) and is also in Bryce (started in ver. 3/4) and is in Mojoworld (I think).
The daylight model used in modo is really quite different from what Bryce used to do. It's not a full atmospheric model (so, unlike Skytracer, it can't really do clouds). However, it has a vastly superior model for the actual sky itself and can very easily replicate, with almost complete photo-realism, a clear blue sky -- just like the physical sky/sun in Maxwell, Vray, finalRender, mental ray, Fryrender, etc.

Also, what MikeRB said.

Tartiflette
04-09-2008, 12:12 PM
Mike, i think everything you can say about features in modo won't have any value to frantbk's eyes, unfortunately... :(
I'm not a modo user but i really don't understand why one has the need to bad mouth all other app he's not using ? :question:
Probably the need to feel safer and think LightWave (or whatever app you put in place...) is the one and only choice in the world ? :bangwall:

Anyway, thanks to all who have contributed in the good way to this thread, there were a lot of detailed and honest answers ! :thumbsup:


Cheers,
Laurent aka Tartiflette :)

frantbk
04-09-2008, 12:13 PM
The daylight model used in modo is really quite different from what Bryce used to do. It's not a full atmospheric model (so, unlike Skytracer, it can't really do clouds). However, it has a vastly superior model for the actual sky itself and can very easily replicate, with almost complete photo-realism, a clear blue sky -- just like the physical sky/sun in Maxwell, Vray, finalRender, mental ray, Fryrender, etc.
Also, what MikeRB said.

:question:

So only clear blue sky's can be rendered? The reason I'm asking is because I've already thought of about three or more improvements that other sectors of the 3D community could use this for.

Captain Obvious
04-09-2008, 12:14 PM
Lightwave has Dpoint, modo has, whatever this thing is called. They came up with questions about the difference of the two tool sets. A major complaint Lightwave/modo users have is the plug-in issue the NewTek. NT bought up plug-ins instead of R&Ding new fresh tool sets, and many of the plug-ins are just sitting in lightwave.
I fail to see the problem. Lightwave has a publically available SDK that lets you develop new shaders and whatnot. modo does not. It is, at the moment, limited to scripting and file I/O.

There's a perfectly valid reason for not having a "proper" SDK publically available for modo yet. Until recently, it's been in a state of rapid change. 201 was so different from 103 that it even broke certain scripts, and the same thing applies to 301 vs 203. My general impression is that it is getting more stable (in the not changing stuff too much sense, rather than the not crashing sense) and a full SDK will probably be released either during the 30n cycle or with 401. But that's just a guess, of course, and I really have no idea.

There's no point in making a shading SDK publically available when you're changing stuff around so much that everybody's shaders would break in the next version anyway.



Mike_RB you have modo 302, you've got the new feature so tell me what you think is good an bad about it.
Okay, things I like:

It's as modo always has been, with excellent modeling and selection tools (I'm in love with whoever came up with the Workplane), but 302 is...
Faster
More stable
Has new tools to make my life easier

And the downside is that some of the things I dislike about modo are still not fixed...
Still no nodes
No construction history of any kind
No good scene management tools
No free text filtering in the shader tree/item list



As far as "things it does worse than Lightwave" goes, that list is pretty long since Lightwave is a full studio animation package, whereas modo is still essentially modeling with extra bits.



Edit:

:question:

So only clear blue sky's can be rendered? The reason I'm asking is because I've already thought of about three or more improvements that other sectors of the 3D community could use this for.
Basically, yes. You can fake clouds with texturing and whatnot, but the Physical Sky thing itself only does clear cloudless skies. It does a really good job simulating haze and such, and makes the horizon nice and red at sunsets, but you can't really do clouds easily with it. Again, this is the same with most renderers that have a physical daylight model. DPont's shader, while awesome, doesn't do clouds either.

Captain Obvious
04-09-2008, 12:23 PM
No, but you can layer textures right over top of it.
Well yeah, but you can do that with the daylight simulator in modo as well. You can't get as good results with that method as you can with a proper volumetric atmospheric simulator, though.

frantbk
04-09-2008, 12:26 PM
Mike, i think everything you can say about features in modo won't have any value to frantbk's eyes, unfortunately... :(

I've never said modo didn't have value. What I've said is it doesn't have anymore value then any of the other programs on the market.




First, quite banging your head against the wall, that isn't any way to solve a question. Two, modo is all other applications. Modo is one application in a market of a group of different applications. That last paragraph really does miss everything that has been said here.

[QUOTE] Anyway, thanks to all who have contributed in the good way to this thread, there were a lot of detailed and honest answers ! :thumbsup:

Cheers,
Laurent aka Tartiflette :)

Yes, to all of those that have promoted modo in the NewTek forum, good job :devil:. Although I'm not sure where all the detail and honest answers are about the 302 release are. Lets see: "still unstable on some issues since 201. Tools that work for me, and only me, so i don't care about anything else in modo."

Until the last few posting there hasn't been that much honesty about modo, nor Lux. I make that statement because I'm asking this one question: Do many of you guys still have problems getting lux to answer you emails? Not the one you send directly to Brad Peebler, but Lux the company. :devil:

If you are going to be honest, then telling everyone the good points about the product also requires honest answer about the bad points of the program. I don't have a problem talking about Lightwave's problems, or it's good points.

frantbk
04-09-2008, 03:16 PM
I fail to see the problem. Lightwave has a publically available SDK that lets you develop new shaders and whatnot. modo does not. It is, at the moment, limited to scripting and file I/O.

The only problem with SDK kits are that you have to be able to program to use them. That can be a limited part of any customer base.


There's a perfectly valid reason for not having a "proper" SDK publically available for modo yet. Until recently, it's been in a state of rapid change. 201 was so different from 103 that it even broke certain scripts, and the same thing applies to 301 vs 203. My general impression is that it is getting more stable (in the not changing stuff too much sense, rather than the not crashing sense) and a full SDK will probably be released either during the 30n cycle or with 401. But that's just a guess, of course, and I really have no idea.

While 103/201 had a split in code. The 201 code was designed for animation and future tool sets to meet the (now defunct roadmap) for the full package. Because of this I'm wondering why 301 can't run some of the 201 scripts?


There's no point in making a shading SDK publically available when you're changing stuff around so much that everybody's shaders would break in the next version anyway.
:bump:

Don't know where this is coming from. Both Dpoint and modo's what's its name tool set can be improved/enhanced without that. :agree:


Okay, things I like:

It's as modo always has been, with excellent modeling and selection tools (I'm in love with whoever came up with the Workplane), but 302 is... [/QUOTE]

:bump:
The Archviz people have complained about the background plane not being accurate enough. Because of this I can say that Lux put too much faith in the workplane to overcome sloppy decimal points.


And the downside is that some of the things I dislike about modo are still not fixed...
Still no nodes
No construction history of any kind
No good scene management tools
No free text filtering in the shader tree/item list

No time frame on nodes - fact is when nodes were discussed several years ago Brad tried to side-step the issue.

Scene management. Don't think Lux has anyway of incorporating a good one into modo's current GUI.


As far as "things it does worse than Lightwave" goes, that list is pretty long since Lightwave is a full studio animation package, whereas modo is still essentially modeling with extra bits.

Until it is a full package, I judge it for what it does and has.

Edit:

Basically, yes. You can fake clouds with texturing and whatnot, but the Physical Sky thing itself only does clear cloudless skies. It does a really good job simulating haze and such, and makes the horizon nice and red at sunsets, but you can't really do clouds easily with it. Again, this is the same with most renderers that have a physical daylight model. DPont's shader, while awesome, doesn't do clouds either.[/QUOTE]

:devil: :devil:

Sounds to me like both companies need to get crackin on that. :D

RTSchramm
04-09-2008, 04:10 PM
I recently installed Modo 302 and it is more stable than LW and Modo 301. I think no other modeling program comes close to what Modo 302 does out of the box. UV tools are excellent, as well as the 3D paint tools. The UI is fast and responsive even under Vista 64 when using high-density meshes.

BUT, I think LW's texturing, animation, and rendering abilities FAR surpass that of Modo 302 at a price that is also cheaper.

The two packages do work extremely well together though.

Animation on LW is extremely simple to do where as in Modo, I think animating is a pain in the ***.

BUT, I think comparing the two is like comparing Apples and Oranges. In fact I laugh out loud every time I see a comparison between LW, Maya, 3D Max, Blender, and etc. Its like comparing a $13000 car with a $30,000 car.

The only application that should scare everyone is Blender, only because it is free and if they ever get the UI straight and integrate a faster render engine, it may one day become the main stream 3D application everyone is wants to own.

In the end, whatever works for you use it, but don't expect any 3D application's tool set to substitute for artistic and\or technical proficiency. It takes long hours of practice and exploration to become a master at 3D animation - shortcuts do not exist!

AND FINALLY - STOP COMPARING APPLES AND ORANGES!

Rich

Tartiflette
04-09-2008, 04:32 PM
Well Frantbk you want to have the last word, you obviously don't like modo (as i said i don't even have it so i'm not here to defend modo nor Lux...) and what is good for the users of this app isn't that good or that interesting for you. :)

Well i'd say "that's fine and cheers to you for what you use and why you use it".
And the same to "modo/maya/XSI/Houdini/Cinema4D/3DS Max/whatever soft" users. :beerchug:

And as the promoting of modo on Newtek forums, let the moderators do their job if they find it's too much of an advertisment. ;)


Cheers,
Laurent aka Tartiflette :)

Cageman
04-09-2008, 04:49 PM
I guess the old saying holds true "you get what you pay for"... except blender of course!

Uhmm... well.. kind of true, kind of not. Depending on what you do, you may end up with a ton of extra work if you choose to use Maya for certain things; especially if you use Renderman. While it is a very flexible pipline, it cost alot and requieres alot of programming/scripting, and even then you may not be able to produce as good quality as LW. I know a bunch of Maya-guys that probably wouldn't be able to do a squat in LW because they don't know how to use it. Does that mean LW is of lesser quality or does it mean that you actually have to learn how to use a tool in order to make use of it?

A single MR-license (for a renderfarm) costs almost as much as a single license of LW which allows for 999 rendernodes and we all know how good LWs renderer is. How does that work with "You get what you pay for"?

Earl
04-09-2008, 04:57 PM
There's a perfectly valid reason for not having a "proper" SDK publically available for modo yet. Until recently, it's been in a state of rapid change.
Captain O.,

I'm just guessing, but I would say the reason there is no SDK in Modo yet is because Lux hasn't made it a priority. And that's understandable. They probably wanted to reach a certain size of userbase before an SDK would be useful enough to devote the necessary resources. They are probably at that point or have been for a while. I reject the notion that the core is changing too rapidly, though, because the whole point of starting an application from scratch is to design it with the future in mind. 201 shouldn't break 101, it should simply add to it. If they're having to re-invent the wheel (so to speak) every update then they are going about it the wrong way (and I don't think they are doing that).

frantbk
04-09-2008, 06:00 PM
Uhmm... well.. kind of true, kind of not. Depending on what you do, you may end up with a ton of extra work if you choose to use Maya for certain things; especially if you use Renderman. While it is a very flexible pipline, it cost alot and requieres alot of programming/scripting, and even then you may not be able to produce as good quality as LW. I know a bunch of Maya-guys that probably wouldn't be able to do a squat in LW because they don't know how to use it. Does that mean LW is of lesser quality or does it mean that you actually have to learn how to use a tool in order to make use of it?

A single MR-license (for a renderfarm) costs almost as much as a single license of LW which allows for 999 rendernodes and we all know how good LWs renderer is. How does that work with "You get what you pay for"?

:agree: :agree:

Theend, everything above and then some :lwicon:

frantbk
04-09-2008, 06:03 PM
I am not saying that LW isn't faster for 90% of things.
But as for quality and implementation of features, things have been going down hill since the price drop. IMHO

even now with 9.3.1 I don't see much of a core rewrite happening... feels like the same LW with more features added and none fine tuned for production. The render nodes are great and so is the renderer, but even the renderer could still use many improvements on the production end of things...

Buffers are weak,
nodes are weak,
layers are none existent,
hvs and volume rendering are weak,
no per surface control for gi photons,
or ray recursions,
Need more gi control...

:devil: :devil: :D

Better be careful Theend, someone might think you have anger issues with lightwave and NewTek. I could be wrong, but it looks to me you are simply stating facts (from your point of view) that others might not like. I sure would not want people doing to you what you've done to me. :angel: :angel: :I_Love_Ne

Captain Obvious
04-10-2008, 03:29 AM
Thats true... I have had good results using a dome with my clouds mapped on the transparency so the gi and the light filter through, and the cloud layer also contributes to the gi.

Does the one in modo add haze(fog) to the scene?
It doesn't, no, but modo has a separate fog feature.




The only problem with SDK kits are that you have to be able to program to use them. That can be a limited part of any customer base.
Yeah, how else are you going to create advanced shaders? Allowing you to write code that plugs into the application is what an SDK does. Even in Lightwave's Nodal, you have to understand mathematical and programming concepts to create really advanced shading trees.



While 103/201 had a split in code. The 201 code was designed for animation and future tool sets to meet the (now defunct roadmap) for the full package. Because of this I'm wondering why 301 can't run some of the 201 scripts?
I think some of the commands had syntax changes that broke some scripts, but I'm not entirely sure.



Don't know where this is coming from. Both Dpoint and modo's what's its name tool set can be improved/enhanced without that.
Without an SDK, Denis Pontonnier couldn't even have implemented his sky simulator.



The Archviz people have complained about the background plane not being accurate enough. Because of this I can say that Lux put too much faith in the workplane to overcome sloppy decimal points.
Where did you get that idea? modo doesn't have lower precision than any other 3D application, as far as I can tell. They all have problems when you have stuff too far away from origin.

Besides, "The Archviz People" includes me, and we don't really have any issues with it.



Scene management. Don't think Lux has anyway of incorporating a good one into modo's current GUI.
I think they probably could. They just haven't, yet.

frantbk
04-10-2008, 06:24 AM
I am a fan of LW, but its showing its age in many areas. Like I said... LW is faster 90% of the time. In my opinion they need to start refining the workflow not adding more features.

Sounds like we have something we can agree on. :)

frantbk
04-10-2008, 06:39 AM
It doesn't, no, but modo has a separate fog feature.
;D
Just to ask a stupid question. These two work together well?


Yeah, how else are you going to create advanced shaders? Allowing you to write code that plugs into the application is what an SDK does. Even in Lightwave's Nodal, you have to understand mathematical and programming concepts to create really advanced shading trees.

:question: :compbeati :bangwall:

Well how about a nodal, or a shader tree unit for non-programmers? Some of the nodal units are pretty easy to understand (Lightwave's might need improvement).


I think some of the commands had syntax changes that broke some scripts, but I'm not entirely sure.

No real explanation from Lux?


Without an SDK, Denis Pontonnier couldn't even have implemented his sky simulator.
;D :stumped:

If the code was split at 103/201 for almost all of the future features then why can't Lux release a SDK kit. One reason could be that Lux hasn't been completely clear about the whole codebase problems with modo.


Where did you get that idea? modo doesn't have lower precision than any other 3D application, as far as I can tell. They all have problems when you have stuff too far away from origin.

From the Luxology forums, from the complaints of Archviz people talking about the background grid that is hide from the user. Go back and check the Lux forums the complaint is there.


Besides, "The Archviz People" includes me, and we don't really have any issues with it.

Well I don't really have an issue with the Federal government, until Tax time comes around. "We don't really have any issues" isn't the same as not have issues with it. :devil: :tsktsk:


I think they probably could. They just haven't, yet.

Could you expand on the statement. I could probably be rich, if I could just win the lotto.

:bangwall:

frantbk
04-10-2008, 06:50 AM
Oh, I've voiced plenty of problems/issues with LightWave :) Some of them have made my banana quite squishy and unhappy at times. I also like modo very much, which is a great sin in the eyes of some people. But I also voice my issues with that particularly application. There's a few very annoying speed issues in the interface that I've voiced just recently. There's also plenty of other very valid concerns on the Lux boards, like the thread about video card support/performance for the poeple who don't have the latest and greatest, yet have very fast performance in 3d-Coat and sucky performance in modo. That's quite an issue and a problem for Luxology. I still like both LightWave and modo, in spite of their shortcomings. In combination it's quite an extensive toolset you have.

Nobody is saying modo isn't a good modeller and from what some people are saying it is an okay painter/sculptor. What is being said is that not everybody is buying into the modo legend about its greatness. It is one of the newer packages on the market, so naturally it will do things that the older package can't do, or are in need of new code to do.

I think the video card support/performance issue should be looked at from two points. One: Lux's attitude in the last 3 quarters has change to the point were Lux is moving away towards the big boys and their high-end machines. Two: Lux could be dropping the single arts/hobby user and intends to deal with only industry people that have an income of x-factor (the recent demo cost).

frantbk
04-10-2008, 06:54 AM
I cant speak about modo... I tried it when it was first released, but I am so used to modeling in LW and z brush that I didnt waste to much time on it... Until they add a nodal interface to modo I wont be going that route... I did not like the shader tree at all!


Just to add, back when the shader tree was implemented, luxology was working with Allegorithmic on ImageSynth. Luxology could have implemented a nodal unit by licensing one from Allegoritmic until they could have R&D their own. Therefore, I have to question if Lux really intends to have a nodal interface.

Captain Obvious
04-10-2008, 08:33 AM
;D
Just to ask a stupid question. These two work together well?
Fairly, yes. It works similarly to Lightwave, in the sense that you can use the environment color to tint the fog.




Well how about a nodal, or a shader tree unit for non-programmers? Some of the nodal units are pretty easy to understand (Lightwave's might need improvement).
I'd like a node-based shader tree for modo, but that is largely unrelated to having an SDK.




If the code was split at 103/201 for almost all of the future features then why can't Lux release a SDK kit. One reason could be that Lux hasn't been completely clear about the whole codebase problems with modo.
There were obviously problems with modo's code back in 103, otherwise they wouldn't have changed it so much.



From the Luxology forums, from the complaints of Archviz people talking about the background grid that is hide from the user. Go back and check the Lux forums the complaint is there.
People complain all the time. That doesn't mean they have legitimate complaints...




Could you expand on the statement. I could probably be rich, if I could just win the lotto.
More like, "I could probably get money, if I started looking for work." I fail to see why modo's interface couldn't accomodate scene management tools.




Just to add, back when the shader tree was implemented, luxology was working with Allegorithmic on ImageSynth. Luxology could have implemented a nodal unit by licensing one from Allegoritmic until they could have R&D their own. Therefore, I have to question if Lux really intends to have a nodal interface.
Ehh, not really. Nodes are just a graphical representation of data relationships, rather than a piece of technology on its own. There are all sorts of issues with doing that.

Mike_RB
04-10-2008, 09:29 AM
LW dosen't have exponential fog, which is more realistic, modo does... so it works pretty well.

frantbk
04-10-2008, 10:03 AM
I'd like a node-based shader tree for modo, but that is largely unrelated to having an SDK.

SDK kits have a limited user base. Unless there are 60-80% of users with SDK skills then it would be a must have item.


There were obviously problems with modo's code back in 103, otherwise they wouldn't have changed it so much.

I would not go that far. I believe the industry changed with the Mac/Intel change. Once the PowerPC was dropped that caused a major rethinking of the modo product.


People complain all the time. That doesn't mean they have legitimate complaints...

:argue:

Careful, what you apply to others; that can easily be applied to you. The complaints are legitimate, and were by people respected by other modo users. :stop: :tsktsk: :tsktsk:



More like, "I could probably get money, if I started looking for work." I fail to see why modo's interface couldn't accomodate scene management tools.

Because if it could it would probably have one by now. Haven't enough people complained about needing a scene manager? I think there were complaints about needing a scene manager even before the 201 release.


Ehh, not really. Nodes are just a graphical representation of data relationships, rather than a piece of technology on its own. There are all sorts of issues with doing that.

I'll stand by the old conversation in the Lux forum. That when Brad was justifying the shader tree. It was fairly clear that Lux isn't interested in Nodes for modo. That could change once modo becomes a full package, but who knows when that will happen.

frantbk
04-10-2008, 10:11 AM
LW dosen't have exponential fog, which is more realistic, modo does... so it works pretty well.

;D

So if LW has exponential fog, then it would be better then the modo feature? Or just the same in quality?

Chris S. (Fez)
04-10-2008, 10:47 AM
I have much more time and money invested in Lightwave than Modo. For bare bones mesh modeling, Modo offers significantly faster workflow than Modeler IMO.

Lightwolf
04-10-2008, 11:02 AM
SDK kits have a limited user base. Unless there are 60-80% of users with SDK skills then it would be a must have item.

Not quite. Are you using any third party plugins? If you use even one then you're a passive SDK user. That easily hits the 60-80% mark...

Cheers,
Mike

Captain Obvious
04-10-2008, 11:14 AM
I would not go that far. I believe the industry changed with the Mac/Intel change. Once the PowerPC was dropped that caused a major rethinking of the modo product.
No, that has nothing to do with it. modo is pretty much just straight up C code. They had the Mac version up and running on Intel at Siggraph, mere hours after the Intel Macs were introduced.



Haven't enough people complained about needing a scene manager?
I guess not.



I'll stand by the old conversation in the Lux forum. That when Brad was justifying the shader tree.
I think the shader tree might need someone standing up to it. Personally, I really like it for its management aspects. I find it much easier to manage my textures with the shader tree than it is with the standard method of just having a long list of completely separate materials. The only thing I prefer about Lightwave is the fact that Nodal lets me create much more advanced shaders.

frantbk
04-10-2008, 11:31 AM
Not quite. Are you using any third party plugins? If you use even one then you're a passive SDK user. That easily hits the 60-80% mark...

Cheers,
Mike

:ohmy: :ohmy:

That is pushing the envelope of SDK. While the plugin's are built with the SDK kit. you'd have to use a percentage based on user skill and understanding of the plug-in. In other words you can't count people that fill in the numeric box as a SDK user. :question: :tsktsk:

frantbk
04-10-2008, 11:36 AM
No, that has nothing to do with it. modo is pretty much just straight up C code. They had the Mac version up and running on Intel at Siggraph, mere hours after the Intel Macs were introduced.
:D
Well if that is all it is, then you should be able to use Lscript in modo, and modo script in Lightwave. Let me know how that works out. :compbeati


I think the shader tree might need someone standing up to it. Personally, I really like it for its management aspects. I find it much easier to manage my textures with the shader tree than it is with the standard method of just having a long list of completely separate materials. The only thing I prefer about Lightwave is the fact that Nodal lets me create much more advanced shaders.

What do you mean by "standing up to it." ? :confused:

frantbk
04-10-2008, 11:38 AM
I have much more time and money invested in Lightwave than Modo. For bare bones mesh modeling, Modo offers significantly faster workflow than Modeler IMO.

What do you think NT needs to change in LW to be better then modo? I'm not talking about putting the modo GUI in LW, or a one-for-replacement of the LW tool sets.

Chris S. (Fez)
04-10-2008, 12:25 PM
What do you think NT needs to change in LW to be better then modo? I'm not talking about putting the modo GUI in LW, or a one-for-replacement of the LW tool sets.


I like Modo for its customization, consolidated toolset and attention to workflow, but only for modeling. All my projects still end up in Layout or Max.

frantbk
04-10-2008, 12:34 PM
I like Modo for its customization, consolidated toolset and attention to workflow, but only for modeling. All my projects still end up in Layout or Max.


You don't have any disagreement on the consolidation of tool sets. I don't know if attention to work-flow extends to the rendering studio in modo (I think that is what lux is calling them now? - modeling studio, sculpting studio, rendering studio). What I do think is that both need to do a better job of dual/multi-monitor use. I know Lux has had major complaints about multi-monitor setups and issues with window setups on multi-monitors.

Captain Obvious
04-10-2008, 12:41 PM
I don't know if attention to work-flow extends to the rendering studio in modo (I think that is what lux is calling them now? - modeling studio, sculpting studio, rendering studio).
I think you have been grossly misinformed about how modo works, to be honest. I've been using modo since 102, and I've never heard of a thing called "studio" inside it.

frantbk
04-10-2008, 01:04 PM
I think you have been grossly misinformed about how modo works, to be honest. I've been using modo since 102, and I've never heard of a thing called "studio" inside it.

:question: :argue:

If I'm grossly misinformed then Brad Peebler misinformed me. He calls the different sections of modo "studio" in the sync the views together in last week's videos, or video's from two weeks prior. This is Brad's term for the different work areas of modo. Go look at the video. :dance:

Cageman
04-10-2008, 01:06 PM
Not quite. Are you using any third party plugins? If you use even one then you're a passive SDK user. That easily hits the 60-80% mark...

Cheers,
Mike


Well, to be really, really honest.. most of the stuff I do in LW is hugely because of some really neat third party tools, such as Node Item Motion, DP-Kit, SPFloater, PassPort, exrTrader, Maya2LW2, PointOven (PointOven is a GREAT tool for mdd-baking en masse..bakes directly to disk btw), some neat tools written by Dodgy and evenflcw as well as a bunch of other usefull scripts and plugins. LW without the third-party tools I use would be very, very unproductive.

To counter this, I still don't use any plugins in Maya except for a bunch of scripts.. nowhere near as many as I have to use in LW in order to be productive when working. Good or bad? Well, some tools are bound to be plugins, while other things (such as the renamingtool that Dodgy has written) should be a part of LWs native workflow.

Captain Obvious
04-10-2008, 01:08 PM
:question: :argue:

If I'm grossly misinformed then Brad Peebler misinformed me. He calls the different sections of modo "studio" in the sync the views together in last week's videos, or video's from two weeks prior. This is Brad's term for the different work areas of modo. Go look at the video. :dance:
I never really have the patience to watch all those videos and listen to all those podcasts... haven't seen one in ages.

Mike_RB
04-10-2008, 01:10 PM
He's talking about the viewport tabs groups. They include other related viewports (like a timeline, or brush preview). Essentially the same things as changing to the model,animate,render,simulation buttons of XSI. They aren't really seperate work areas, related things have just been grouped for ease of use.

Chris S. (Fez)
04-10-2008, 01:20 PM
I definitely dislike surfacing/rendering workflow in Modo.

Honestly, the main reason I took to modeling in Modo is because it feels like Lightwave Modeler but with faster workflow. The learning curve was practically instantaneous. For the amount of modeling I do, that "faster workflow" saves me time, money and headache.

I appreciate the power of Modo's texturing/surfacing but but when I need to get the job done I load up Lightwave or Max.

frantbk
04-10-2008, 01:41 PM
He's talking about the viewport tabs groups. They include other related viewports (like a timeline, or brush preview). Essentially the same things as changing to the model,animate,render,simulation buttons of XSI. They aren't really seperate work areas, related things have just been grouped for ease of use.

If you've watched it then you confirm that Brad called them studio. You can sync the different tabs so that the view in modeler is the same for render, and sculpt.

frantbk
04-10-2008, 01:43 PM
I definitely dislike surfacing/rendering workflow in Modo.

Honestly, the main reason I took to modeling in Modo is because it feels like Lightwave Modeler but with faster workflow. The learning curve was practically instantaneous. For the amount of modeling I do, that "faster workflow" saves me time, money and headache.

I appreciate the power of Modo's texturing/surfacing but but when I need to get the job done I load up Lightwave or Max.

I just came from the Lux site. Whats with all this modo not installing, and having to delete custom config. files?

Captain Obvious
04-10-2008, 02:38 PM
I just came from the Lux site. Whats with all this modo not installing, and having to delete custom config. files?
I think it's a bug with the installer software. I've installed 301 and 302 a few dozen times now without any real issues, so I guess it's not the most common of bugs. Maybe I've just been lucky?

frantbk
04-10-2008, 02:41 PM
Just to make a point. This is the sixth release with install and config problems in modo. Add to that all of the complaints that Lightwave 8.x backwards had during there releases; and I'm sure you would have to admit, that the Lux team needs to work on its quality control. What I'm saying is that these problems don't seem to be due to the nexus/modo programming, but more with the sloppy habits of the Lux team.

Lightwolf
04-10-2008, 03:14 PM
In other words you can't count people that fill in the numeric box as a SDK user. :question: :tsktsk:
Huh... why not? Any user using a third party plugin... be it free or commercial... directly benefits from LW having an SDK. Thus they are passive users... they profit from the fact that it exists.

Cheers,
Mike

Lightwolf
04-10-2008, 03:17 PM
Well if that is all it is, then you should be able to use Lscript in modo, and modo script in Lightwave.
I don't get this one either... what does the language a tool has been coded in have to do with a scripting language? (I'm not even going to go into the fact that LScript as we know it is a scripting language/API combination).

Cheers,
Mike

Cageman
04-10-2008, 03:28 PM
Huh... why not? Any user using a third party plugin... be it free or commercial... directly benefits from LW having an SDK. Thus they are passive users... they profit from the fact that it exists.

Cheers,
Mike

Yeah... I probably missed that point with my recent post. What I meant was the fact that LW seems to have a pretty good SDK (I'm not a programmer so don't take my word for it), hence the great deal of thirdparty tools...

However, I'm not happy with the fact that some scripts/plugins are done in order to make LW productive (depending on what you do of course) rather than offer completely new functionality. A good example would be the renamingtool (written by Dodgy) that we use alot at work. Naming/Renaming/Prefixing/Suffixing multiple items is something I concider to be included within the base app these days. LW still doesn't have it. One could argue that I should learn how to write my own script(s) in order to do so, but that dosen't rhyme with "Easy to use, fast workflow" that LW in many cases stands for.

jayroth
04-10-2008, 03:35 PM
However, I'm not happy with the fact that some scripts/plugins are done in order to make LW productive (depending on what you do of course) rather than offer completely new functionality. A good example would be the renamingtool (written by Dodgy) that we use alot at work. Naming/Renaming/Prefixing/Suffixing multiple items is something I concider to be included within the base app these days. LW still doesn't have it. One could argue that I should learn how to write my own script(s) in order to do so, but that dosen't rhyme with "Easy to use, fast workflow" that LW in many cases stands for.

While I do agree with your point that renaming tools should be a part of LW, I completely disagree with your assertion that plug-ins or scripts be focused solely on developing new features... there is no logical reason to place such a limitation on people. The expression "more than one way to skin a cat" comes to mind here. It may be that a feature is implemented in one fashion in LW, but someone else writes a plug in or script that approaches the feature differently (regardless of whether or not you personally may think it would be superior to the factory offering.) The reasons for the writer to do this is up to the writer (and to the market served by the writer, if marketed commercially.) The cool thing is the the SDK allows you to add to what we package in LW, either in the form of making up the deficiencies of the program, or expanding LW into new directions. Both have their benefits to the community...

Ztreem
04-10-2008, 03:35 PM
Is this a NewTek forum or a Luxology forum? Can we skip the Modo crap. Thank you!

Cageman
04-10-2008, 04:06 PM
While I do agree with your point that renaming tools should be a part of LW, I completely disagree with your assertion that plug-ins or scripts be focused solely on developing new features... there is no logical reason to place such a limitation on people. The expression "more than one way to skin a cat" comes to mind here. It may be that a feature is implemented in one fashion in LW, but someone else writes a plug in or script that approaches the feature differently (regardless of whether or not you personally may think it would be superior to the factory offering.) The reasons for the writer to do this is up to the writer (and to the market served by the writer, if marketed commercially.) The cool thing is the the SDK allows you to add to what we package in LW, either in the form of making up the deficiencies of the program, or expanding LW into new directions. Both have their benefits to the community...

Hi Jay, and thanks alot for joining this discussion!

It is true that some things are done i the fasion of expanding existing capability. If you watched my tutorial about wakes creation you'll understand what I mean. Not to be an ego, but I think it would be a very good example of where one developer develops a tool (Node Item Motion) and another developes scripts/plugins to streamline the use of Node Item motion (Dynamic Bonechain tools) for certain tasks and ontop of that yet another third party developer adds the possibility to make things float without the issues that Sticky has (SPFloater).

Making all these tools working in conjunction with tools already developed by NewTek is always nice, but, in many cases it is hard. In the list above, Node Item Motion is the one I would expect NT do develop rather than third party. Why? Well, for starters, it opens up so many possibilities that I doubt any third party developer would be able to integrate into LW. What about all motion modifiers currently avaliable? Will we ever see a nodal counterpart if NT didn't develop Motion Options to become Nodal instead of what we have now? Basic, good workflow (or thought out tools that works with other tools) is key for apps these days. How can my L-scripting friends automate the setup of rigs that uses alot of Relativity?

frantbk
04-10-2008, 04:37 PM
Huh... why not? Any user using a third party plugin... be it free or commercial... directly benefits from LW having an SDK. Thus they are passive users... they profit from the fact that it exists.

Cheers,
Mike

:D

They benefit because NT has an SDK kit. If I follow this logic, then I'm a car engineer because I use my car, and turn it on, and read the gauges, and fill it up with (some gas - Oooo those prices :mad: :hammer:). I'm willing to agree they benefit because of the SDK kit, but not that they are passive users of the SDK kit. They are the users of the end product of the SDK kit.

Lightwolf
04-10-2008, 04:44 PM
They are the users of the end product of the SDK kit.
Bingo... just as you are the user of a car engineers skill (well... more of a mechanic than an engineer if we continue using the analogy).
You were doubting the need for an SDK because of the limited user base that uses it... while the user bases that profits from it is a lot larger. If you call that profiting from it or passively using it is just semantics... the point is the same: SDKs are very important.

Cheers,
Mike

frantbk
04-10-2008, 04:45 PM
I don't get this one either... what does the language a tool has been coded in have to do with a scripting language? (I'm not even going to go into the fact that LScript as we know it is a scripting language/API combination).
Cheers,
Mike

If nexus is straight C then it should run anything by product that conforms to the straight C. Lux has its words/string of words that it uses in C. NewTek has its words/string used in C. While these words/strings and have the same meaning. The two programs do not understand what the other is saying. So if you were to convert an Lscript to modo you would have to change the key word/string that modo understands, and the Lscript still will probably bomb. Therefore, the saying straight C isn't a proper. In other words it can't be straight C because both programs would have the ability to read each others codebase.

frantbk
04-10-2008, 04:48 PM
Bingo... just as you are the user of a car engineers skill (well... more of a mechanic than an engineer if we continue using the analogy).
You were doubting the need for an SDK because of the limited user base that uses it... while the user bases that profits from it is a lot larger. If you call that profiting from it or passively using it is just semantics... the point is the same: SDKs are very important.

Cheers,
Mike

:D

You were, I wasn't. I think all I said was many of use who couldn't SDK our way out of a wet paper bag, could use a Nodal for Dpoint. :foreheads

Lightwolf
04-10-2008, 04:51 PM
Therefore, the saying straight C isn't a proper. In other words it can't be straight C because both programs would have the ability to read each others codebase.
Erm... sorry for being so frank but you have no clue about programming or how computers work, do you?
In essence all programs for the same CPU family end up being in the same "language" - regardless of the programming language used. That has absolutely nothing to do with interoperability though (Otherwise you should be able to LScript Windows... because a lot of it is vanilla C as well).
Even LW itself isnt pure C anymore... and nor is modo (at least the SDK is C++).
There is also a huge difference between programming languages and APIs... i.e. Just because two apps support Python scripting does not mean that you can interchange scripts between them (as the functionality provided to Python by the apps is very likely to differ).

Cheers,
Mike

Mike_RB
04-10-2008, 05:20 PM
Erm... sorry for being so frank but you have no clue about programming or how computers work, do you?

This seems to be a theme running through more than just the subject of programming and computers. I think we've pretty much exhausted any effort to satisfy frank's questions.

frantbk
04-10-2008, 07:36 PM
Erm... sorry for being so frank but you have no clue about programming or how computers work, do you?
In essence all programs for the same CPU family end up being in the same "language" - regardless of the programming language used. That has absolutely nothing to do with interoperability though (Otherwise you should be able to LScript Windows... because a lot of it is vanilla C as well).
Even LW itself isnt pure C anymore... and nor is modo (at least the SDK is C++).
There is also a huge difference between programming languages and APIs... i.e. Just because two apps support Python scripting does not mean that you can interchange scripts between them (as the functionality provided to Python by the apps is very likely to differ).

Cheers,
Mike

Bingo. Because all program language is base on the concepts of language, and all of the original professors of computer language based their work on language and the structure of language. The statement that modo is using straight C means that it is using the original C. Once a language is modified it becomes a sub-dialectic of the original. What Brad Peebler meant was that the C used for modo was, I believe, without the use of a prepackaged IDE. That Lux wasn't using any industry product. Still, the statement is false, because straight C would be original C.

Snosrap
04-10-2008, 09:09 PM
I definitely dislike surfacing/rendering workflow in Modo.

I appreciate the power of Modo's texturing/surfacing but but when I need to get the job done I load up Lightwave or Max.


Ain't that the truth!

Snosrap

Lightwolf
04-11-2008, 03:10 AM
Bingo. Because all program language is base on the concepts of language, and all of the original professors of computer language based their work on language and the structure of language.
That is pretty far fetched... look at some machine code in hex and then tell me about language (and yes, we had to code CPUs directly in binary at Uni).

The statement that modo is using straight C means that it is using the original C.
No, not really. There's at least three "official" variants of C, the original k&r C, ANSI C and C99. And all of these are standardized.
To take it one step further... C legally allows you to write code that looks nothing like C (by using macros).

Once a language is modified it becomes a sub-dialectic of the original.
Look at the original C++ compiler, which was a front end. It took C++ code and turned it into C to be compiled by a vanilla C compiler. C++ is a superset of C.. but what it churned out back then was C. It ain't black and white...

What Brad Peebler meant was that the C used for modo was, I believe, without the use of a prepackaged IDE. That Lux wasn't using any industry product. Still, the statement is false, because straight C would be original C.
A compiler is an industry product as well and in many cases independant of an IDE.
I don't get the point though. Who cares about the language used as long as it works and the developers and the SDK users are happy with it?

Cheers,
Mike

colkai
04-11-2008, 05:00 AM
look at some machine code in hex and then tell me about language (and yes, we had to code CPUs directly in binary at Uni).
Mike

Heh, oh man, how I remember the weight of my X86 instruction book. :)
Classes? IDE's? what dey? :jester:

Lightwolf
04-11-2008, 05:03 AM
Heh, oh man, how I remember the weight of my X86 instruction book. :)

8008 - 10 dip switches and 8 LEDs to rule the world... (to bad that the 680x0 series had already spoilt me by then).

Cheers,
Mike

frantbk
04-11-2008, 06:54 AM
That is pretty far fetched... look at some machine code in hex and then tell me about language (and yes, we had to code CPUs directly in binary at Uni).

Yes, and take a look at the old punch card readers that predate coding directly in binary machine code. The higher languages were developed to make it easier to program. Where do you think the if, then statements came from? basic math? No all of the higher languages are based in language and the structure of language.


No, not really. There's at least three "official" variants of C, the original k&r C, ANSI C and C99. And all of these are standardized.
To take it one step further... C legally allows you to write code that looks nothing like C (by using macros).

When you speak English, do you speak US English, UK English, or European English?


Look at the original C++ compiler, which was a front end. It took C++ code and turned it into C to be compiled by a vanilla C compiler. C++ is a superset of C.. but what it churned out back then was C. It ain't black and white...
The same as someone who knows the difference between one sub-dialects and one original dialect.


A compiler is an industry product as well and in many cases independant of an IDE.
US English, regional English, and slang English


I don't get the point though. Who cares about the language used as long as it works and the developers and the SDK users are happy with it?

Cheers,
Mike

This has nothing to do with the SDK kit. C.O. quoted Brad Peebler almost word for word from a few years ago about the type of language use in nexus/modo. I've been discussing the fact that C.O. quote is based on a false statement of fact. Lux isn't using straight C.

frantbk
04-11-2008, 06:57 AM
This seems to be a theme running through more than just the subject of programming and computers. I think we've pretty much exhausted any effort to satisfy frank's questions.

Bingo, give that man a new car (make it a hybred). :thumbsup:

Lightwolf
04-11-2008, 07:19 AM
Where do you think the if, then statements came from? basic math?
Yes, mainly boolean logic to start off with. Computer Science 101. Or an extension of electronic parts into programmability. It all starts with a few NOR, NAND and whatever gates... (No, I'm not going to go back and look it up again to get into details... ).


When you speak English, do you speak US English, UK English, or European English?
UK English... at least I try to :)

The same as someone who knows the difference between one sub-dialects and one original dialect.
Not quite. Different programming languages are designed for different concepts... and often that is even visible in the final app to un-savvy users.
That is a much bigger difference than natural language dialects if you want to use the language properly... because it can radically change the design.
Which, in a way, goes for natural languages as well. Cursing is much more fun in arabic, but you'd want to discuss technical details in German (it being a very precise language).
English is a fairly bastardized language anyhow (even the original UK english, never mind the trimmed down US version).

US English, regional English, and slang English
Huh? Bad analogy... UK english but different dictionaries is more like it. Including standardized (but with different additions) content. Different paper and printing though.


This has nothing to do with the SDK kit. C.O. quoted Brad Peebler almost word for word from a few years ago about the type of language use in nexus/modo. I've been discussing the fact that C.O. quote is based on a false statement of fact. Lux isn't using straight C.
What difference does it make to you? If they use a tool that sits on top of a C compiler and spits out C... so what? In that respect none of the major players use a language as is... As I said, you can add macros to C to make it looking almost nothing like C and still is completely valid C. Check out some of the Macromedia (now part of Adobe) SDKs... they almost look they they invented their own programming language... still it is completely valid.
It is also quite common to code partially in a different "macro" language and have it translate (check out Bison/Yacc and the related family of tools, or even SWIG).

So, how many lines of modo code have you seen? (and yes... I have actually seen some!):

Cheers,
Mike

Chuck
04-11-2008, 07:20 AM
LW dosen't have exponential fog, which is more realistic, modo does... so it works pretty well.

The "Realistic" fog mode added in v9.0 is exponential fog.

Mike_RB
04-11-2008, 07:35 AM
The "Realistic" fog mode added in v9.0 is exponential fog.

thanks Chuck! Honestly I don't really use either as fog is always a post effect for us using a depth pass, but it's good to know this is in Lw too. Unfortunately it's the only option in modo (it would be nice to have the others as well).