PDA

View Full Version : Some people just don't understand poly / subd modelling!



Matt
06-26-2008, 06:57 AM
We have a new guy starting at our place, and one thing we want to do is train him up on LightWave, so I can take holidays! ;)

Anyway, I was happily discussing the pros and cons of poly based modelling when one of the partners announced that LightWave is a "crap modeler"!

First off, he was comparing Modeler to SolidWorks, which just isn't comparable, they are totally different beasts, each very good at what they do, but work in different areas.

Well that was it!

<Red mist, slightly fanboy, defender of LightWave mode on!>

(I realise I'm preaching to the converted here, but had to get it off my chest!)

One is for manufacturing, the other is not.

One can do nice fillets in an instant, the other can not (not true fillets anyway).

One can model anything from cars to creatures from outer space, the other can not (no where near as easy anyway)

One costs thousands of pounds, the other doesn't.

One is parametric, the other is not.

One of us has seen more complicated things modelled in Modeler that SolidWorks would choke on, the other has not.

One has the benefit of knowing what he's talking about because he's used BOTH packages, the other does not.

One of us has the benefit on knowing that Modeler is _still_, despite years of stalled development, one of the leaders in it's field, the other does not.

</Red mist, slightly fanboy, defender of LightWave mode off!>

Ahhhh that's better!

pooby
06-26-2008, 07:05 AM
wouldn't this be better directed at him?

Matt
06-26-2008, 07:10 AM
I said most of these things! :D

He also seems to always think we should be using 3DSMax, despite knowing nothing about it, or LightWave!

flakester
06-26-2008, 07:13 AM
Good rant; nice points well made.

Still think you should beat him to death with one of his own shoes though. :p

flakester.

Matt
06-26-2008, 07:15 AM
I can relate to everything you write, except the last part. I quite frankly don't think that Modeler is remotely close to being a leader in it's field anymore - that time has passed, it has simply been neglected for too long. But for straight poly and subd modeling it's obviously much better suited than SolidWorks in any case.

Isn't SolidWorks a leader in it's field? (I'm not too knowledgable about the parametric modeling biz).

That's why I said _one_ of the leaders in it's field, that's not to say it doesn't need a lot of work though.

SolidWorks is highly regarded, it took a lot of business away from the then leader ProEngineer.

But it can't do A-class surfaces, so it's used more in the industrial design / tool making business, the automotive industry use CATIA and 'NX' (formerly Unigraphics)

Matt
06-26-2008, 07:51 AM
I agree, but I'd still rather model in Modeler than Max! :D

Andyjaggy
06-26-2008, 08:37 AM
No kidding, love the tab. Talking to a guy who modeled at Weta and he didn't seem to understand how I could switch between the poly cage and the subd mesh with just a key press. It seemed to almost confuse him.....

sammael
06-26-2008, 09:47 AM
Another thing.

I really like the fast TAB subpatch toggle workflow of Modeler/modo - It is a defining feature of these applications. I really miss that whenever I use something that doesn't work as fluently as this.

You probably know this already but in maya 2008 keys 1,2 & 3 toggle subpatch.

StOuen
06-26-2008, 10:01 AM
I don't know much about other modeling packages but what I do know is that I can fire up modeler and its like its connected to my brain directly. Its the freakin t*ts man.

No way I would change.

CAClark
06-26-2008, 10:17 AM
I think in many ways max is a better solution for a lot of thinsg as it has nurbs etc which Lightwave doesn't, but i would be hard pushed to model in anythign beside lightwave unless I really had to do it, and it is totally fair to say that Lightwave and Solidworks cannot be compared.

Cheers!

Andyjaggy
06-26-2008, 10:28 AM
Yeah I still enjoy modeling in Modeler, even though Modo has started to really grab my attention after modeling in it for a month or so.

Stupid people, it's like the girl who was arguing with me that illustrator was better then photoshop. I'm like doh, they are made for completely different things you moron.

Steamthrower
06-26-2008, 12:11 PM
Stupid people, it's like the girl who was arguing with me that illustrator was better then photoshop. I'm like doh, they are made for completely different things you moron.

But...Illustrator is vector-based and Photoshop is pixel-based...and everyone knows vectors are better!

Captain Obvious
06-26-2008, 12:46 PM
Vectors RULE!
http://media.bestofmicro.com/Ataris-1983-Star-Wars-arcade-game-featured-simple-vector-graphics-but-at-the-time-the-experience-was-mind-blowing,O-Z-94211-13.jpg

bobakabob
06-26-2008, 03:21 PM
One can model anything from cars to creatures from outer space, the other can not (no where near as easy anyway)

One costs thousands of pounds, the other doesn't.



Well said Matt. This is what I've always loved about Lightwave's Modeler. (I'm writing as someone who was psychologically scarred from Nurbs modelling in 3D Echh in the late 90s and never recovered) :D

Sarford
06-26-2008, 05:50 PM
Vectors RULE!
http://media.bestofmicro.com/Ataris-1983-Star-Wars-arcade-game-featured-simple-vector-graphics-but-at-the-time-the-experience-was-mind-blowing,O-Z-94211-13.jpg

Ahh, vector screens, don't you just LOVE em? Those screens would be almost ideal for modeling. Almost couse they get dog slow with lots of stuff onscreen. But what a picture quality :heart:
Is this a screen from the Vectrex?

AbnRanger
06-26-2008, 06:54 PM
I agree, but I'd still rather model in Modeler than Max! :DThat's cause yo don't know it....touche :D

Matt
06-27-2008, 12:20 AM
That's cause yo don't know it....touche :D

True, but I've seen it enough to know it looks laboured!

Red_Oddity
06-27-2008, 12:35 AM
You probably know this already but in maya 2008 keys 1,2 & 3 toggle subpatch.

Well, sort off, it's just a display hack, you still need to create a SubD node in the Approxomation Editor (and fix whatever tripoly blows your mesh to hell), or attach a PolySmooth on your objects (and keep deleting and adding it when you edit your work, other wise the History stack fucks up anything from your UVs to god know what)
You could offcourse just convert your Polys to SubD meshes, but that's like working with a mesh that is stuck in a tar pit.

Still, the 1,2,3 toggling is a big step forward though.

cresshead
06-27-2008, 01:44 AM
interesting topic on modelers...

here's my views..

lightwave> solid modeler but lacking transform gizmos, custom grids, history, parametric tools, camera, lighting, rigging...looking abit dated now.

modo> pretty good all round but lacks history and parametric tools
i don't think long term modo will get to be the best modeler due to lack of history and parametric tools...but having modeling in the main scene with lights, camera and 'wot not' is def a step forward.

maya> looks really solid with good poly tools and nurbs toolset plus has history and that wonderful ''insert edgeloop''....yummy!

xsi> not spent that much time modeling in xsi but it looks okay


silo seems okay operates like lightwave but has transform gizmos i've not upgraded to 2.0 so it's okay but i'd prefer to stay in a complete app if possible.

hexagon seems to be pretty good but i couldn't get past some of it's wacky ways:hey:..a bit buggy too last time i played.

cinema 4d no idea...not tried it...does it have modifiers like max/maya?

3dsmax very capable out of the box and with polyboost [$154] probably one of the best modelers out there.
nurbs tools in max are awful but adding powernurbs and power solids would make it a best of breed modeler...though expensive!

houdini last time i looked it was awful!:D

if i were to narrow down my top choices for modeling..and EXCLUDING zbrush from that list...

i'd list maya max and lightwave in no particular order...but also adding that you could swap lightwave for modo in most cases.

pauland
06-27-2008, 01:52 AM
But...Illustrator is vector-based and Photoshop is pixel-based...and everyone knows vectors are better!

And some vectors are better and cheaper than others.

Meet the LW of the vector world.. http://www.xara.com/
(even does 3D extrusions).

You don't need photoshop or illustrator to texture your models.

Paul

sammael
06-27-2008, 02:38 AM
Well, sort off, it's just a display hack, you still need to create a SubD node in the Approxomation Editor (and fix whatever tripoly blows your mesh to hell), or attach a PolySmooth on your objects (and keep deleting and adding it when you edit your work, other wise the History stack fucks up anything from your UVs to god know what)
You could offcourse just convert your Polys to SubD meshes, but that's like working with a mesh that is stuck in a tar pit.

Still, the 1,2,3 toggling is a big step forward though.

I was not aware of the issues with it, I'm quite new to Maya so thanks for the tips. So far I have not had any issues.

bobakabob
06-27-2008, 03:02 AM
xsi> not spent that much time modeling in xsi but it looks okay

3dsmax very capable out of the box and with polyboost [$154] probably one of the best modelers out there.
nurbs tools in max are awful but adding powernurbs and power solids would make it a best of breed modeler...though expensive!


XSI's modeller is pretty impressive with a sturdy, reliable - and familiar - feel. Wouldn't be surprising if XSI's engineers used LW's Modeler as a template when revamping Softimage..? One really nifty feature is the local subdivision tool which allows you to add more detail to specific areas of your model without messing up the geometry.

Despite LW's Modeller feeling neglected (In an ideal world Newtek should forge a deal with the excellent sculpting / painting tool 3D Coat) it's just so fast and immediate with a zillion mostly free plugins out there and as Matt stated there's nothing you can't model in it :lwicon:

And 3D Max... don't get me going. 2008 and you still have to pay $154 for decent poly tools on top of a $4000 app? I marvel at anyone who enjoys wading through the endless clunky panels without having their inspiration annihilated. Then again I'm still bitter and twisted at wasting so many hours of my youth in the late 90s trying to model a face using nurbs in Max which looked like a dog's breakfast :D

Red_Oddity
06-27-2008, 03:37 AM
I was not aware of the issues with it, I'm quite new to Maya so thanks for the tips. So far I have not had any issues.

When you start doing larger projects with a larger team, Maya need someone dedicated to debug scenes, which is a shame, but it does allow for some crazy stuff which i would have a hard time doing it in LW (but the same goes the other way around).

Cageman
06-27-2008, 04:55 AM
Well, here you are your own debugger, kind of (speaking about Maya now). We are around 20 people in the cinematics team and we all have to debug what we are doing in order to not make the pipe go on its knees. The BS Maya does is a limiting factor when doing certain rigs, because you ALWAYS have to think 3-4 steps ahead and make it as easy as possible to either bake (joints) or cache (Geometry cache) but the problem then is that Geometrycache only bakes deformed objects; keyframe cube moving from position A to B doesn't work with GeoCache. Crap!

NewTek really did hit the nail when they created MDD (or maybe they didin't invent it btw?) Anyhow... it is a very robust vertex caching system, compatible with other apps as well.

geothefaust
06-27-2008, 08:57 AM
And some vectors are better and cheaper than others.

Meet the LW of the vector world.. http://www.xara.com/
(even does 3D extrusions).

You don't need photoshop or illustrator to texture your models.

Paul

I suppose this may be a bit off topic... But, that program looks pretty nice. Thanks for the link. :)

Steamthrower
06-27-2008, 10:52 AM
(In an ideal world Newtek should forge a deal with the excellent sculpting / painting tool 3D Coat)

We should start a petition. Although it looks like Andrew's doing pretty good on his own!

tribbles
06-27-2008, 11:15 AM
I suppose this may be a bit off topic... But, that program looks pretty nice. Thanks for the link. :)

Xara is an amazing program - especially for the cost. I've been using it for a very long time (when it was called "Artworks", and on a different platform).

There's some great curve modifiers that would be fantastic to have in modeller (such as adding a point in a curve and not modify the curve's path, and superb boolean operations).

cresshead
06-27-2008, 01:50 PM
And 3D Max... don't get me going. 2008 and you still have to pay $154 for decent poly tools on top of a $4000 app? I marvel at anyone who enjoys wading through the endless clunky panels without having their inspiration annihilated. Then again I'm still bitter and twisted at wasting so many hours of my youth in the late 90s trying to model a face using nurbs in Max which looked like a dog's breakfast :D

actually 3dsmax's modeling tools are very good already with history and parametric tools

...but adding polyboost makes 3dsmax the best poly modeler out there...show me an app that can do all of what max can when you add on polyboost too...

Chris S. (Fez)
06-27-2008, 02:45 PM
...but adding polyboost makes 3dsmax the best poly modeler out there...show me an app that can do all of what max can when you add on polyboost too...

I agree. Max became my main modeler as of Max 2008, because of Polyboost, Sticky Keys and viewport speed (2009 sp1 is looking pretty sweet in terms of stability, so I am making the switch this week).

Max still does not have true isoline subds OR endomorphs like Lightwave. Which drives me crazy.

bobakabob
06-27-2008, 05:54 PM
actually 3dsmax's modeling tools are very good already with history and parametric tools

...but adding polyboost makes 3dsmax the best poly modeler out there...show me an app that can do all of what max can when you add on polyboost too...

You may be right but the cost isn't funny ($154 + $4000 for the host app).

Why don't the Polyboost team dump Max and create a standalone program? And what can the Max + Polyboost solution produce that Lightwave's Modeler + LW Cad can't?

IMHO ZBrush is the most innovative modeller of recent times which has totally redefined 3D. It fits beautifully with LW at the moment but if it ever developed intuitive poly modelling tools and animation tools it would consume everything in its path 8~

cresshead
06-27-2008, 06:12 PM
re polyboost..there's so many things..your best bet is to take a look through the website on www.polyboost.com then you'll get a much better idea than me just listing stuff...polyboost site has mini looping gif's on many of the new stuff plus a video or 2 on the longer standing features as well.

it seems to have invented some of it's own tools as well as re imagining tools found in near all other apps such as lightwave, silo maya etc....so in many respects with polyboost you get silo, modo, lightwave and maya plus max and a host of polyboost only features all wrapped up in a single plugin.... pretty neat really!


i'll agree also that zbrush is truly NEXT GEN and if pixologic ever made a full app i'm sure everyone else would be very interested in their take on where to go and how.

i'd finish by saying lightwave has some great workflows that should be standard in all apps...and some have taken that on board if you look at other apps...newtek and lightwave need a push forward and make some new standards in up coming versions they've had some real 'visionary' tool creation in the past that apps/plugins have only in the last 2-3 years started to implement into their competing apps.

stib
06-30-2008, 06:50 AM
to hijack the thread a bit more:

Xara: Has a Free Linux version (http://www.xaraxtreme.org/) - LW: doesn't have a linux version at all.

geo_n
07-01-2008, 05:45 AM
I agree, but I'd still rather model in Modeler than Max! :D

In your case, what's in lw that isn't in max, modeller wise? I find them both efficient.
One thing I like about max is the xyz control in the perspective mode. Very useful and lw doesn't have it. One thing that max doesn't have is backgound image that's locked in all viewport. Have to rely on polygon planes to add blueprints, etc. Other than that they seem similar to me.

That's what i got on the top of my head that I want for both appz and strictly for poly modelling. Nurbs can be done elsewhere better like rhino 3d. Moi is cheap. Anyone using it?

Matt
07-01-2008, 07:23 AM
In your case, what's in lw that isn't in max, modeller wise? I find them both efficient.
One thing I like about max is the xyz control in the perspective mode. Very useful and lw doesn't have it. One thing that max doesn't have is backgound image that's locked in all viewport. Have to rely on polygon planes to add blueprints, etc. Other than that they seem similar to me.

That's what i got on the top of my head that I want for both appz and strictly for poly modelling. Nurbs can be done elsewhere better like rhino 3d. Moi is cheap. Anyone using it?

From the rare times I've demo'd Max, it just seems horribly 'clicky' to do anything. Doesn't feel a 'free' as LightWave, despite having more features. But that's my problem with it, it almost has TOO many.

In fairness to it though, I don't know it. So I'm sure it's just wonderful, oh apart from the fact it's owned by AutoDick.

;)

MOI is very nice, not great if you have a very complicated model though.

bobakabob
07-01-2008, 12:35 PM
From the rare times I've demo'd Max, it just seems horribly 'clicky' to do anything. Doesn't feel a 'free' as LightWave, despite having more features. But that's my problem with it, it almost has TOO many.

In fairness to it though, I don't know it. So I'm sure it's just wonderful, oh apart from the fact it's owned by AutoDick.

;)

MOI is very nice, not great if you have a very complicated model though.

Heh, agreed. AutoDuck's 3D Echh is way too clicky by comparison to Lightwave. How I loathe it. Other adjectives that spring to mind are awkward, blundering, blunt, bulky, bumbling, bungling, cumbersome, cumbrous, elephantine, gawky, graceless, ham-fisted, ham-handed, heavy-handed, hulky, inelegant, inept, inexpert, jerky, klutzy, lumbering, maladroit, ponderous, stiff, stumbling, uncoordinated, ungainly, unhandy, unwieldy. Not to mention bloody expensive.

PS Love these threads. I'd admit this is hardly constructive input but an occasional rant is good for mental wellbeing. And I wish I could reclaim the precious lost years of my youth I wasted on this software abomination :D

gerry_g
07-01-2008, 01:53 PM
Lightwave is very comfortable (its Byzantine quad orthodoxy withstanding) but heres the thing, I'm dragging stuff around screen today to pose it and as usual it's moving like a snail so I have to go use the 'M' word just to get things done in a reasonable time frame. Yesterday I needed a nurbs sphere to solve a pole problem that wouldn't go away, my first poly modeler (going back seven or eight years now) could offer me one as a standard primitive, Lightwave is old and getting older, and throwing rocks at the competition is ok just so long as you don't live in a glass house youself, even if the glass does use volume stack node these days.

Smokie
07-02-2008, 01:11 AM
Im sure all these modelling programs are sweeet programs. Of course there will be pros and cons (like the lacking of char anim in LW). I think its a final decision on the modeler. I think the modeller will choose the program that fits his best needs. If your a hobbyist or just a freelancer then the program you choose may not be a big choice whereas if your working in a studio for a company then their 'requirments' may be to have knowledge in a certain programs. Its also how the modeller uses the program and how much knowledge and tricks he/she knows to get the desired look. Im new to LW 9.3 and it has been EASY EASY to learn and grasp. Couple weeks only and im able to model and render photorealistic images. Ive never tried any other modeller but I know I will some time down the road. But reading this thread I think i will stick with LW for now. With every upgrade LW improves so much that im just anticipating the next release :thumbsup:

jin choung
07-02-2008, 02:10 AM
despite knowing nothing about it, or LightWave!

but that's the standard way of doing it after all....

i see wavers get bent out of shape when someone disses their app of choice without having tried it, least of all mastered it, but how many wavers make their choices having completely mastered the ins and outs of other apps?

i said it before, i'll say it again, 3d apps choice is a lot like religion. most people do not select their religion after "comparison shopping" all the others first and making a truly informed choice. tenets of zoarastrianism anyone?

(don't be a smarta$$ i got google too)

you pick one. and more or less by virtue of your choice, THAT'S the right one. : )

can we do any less with 3d apps? i say thee nay!

jin

p.s. i am NOT a luxology fan but i gotta say that i'm impressed that it's getting credit for being used in wall-e.... that's the kind of thing that makes me stand up and take notice.

jin choung
07-02-2008, 02:18 AM
oh,

regarding non sculpting traditional modeling - IT HARDLY MATTERS ANYMORE.

if the modeler in question surpasses a THRESHOLD OF COMPETENCE, virtually any modern poly/subd modeler can do anything any other can and there are a ton of them and a great many free and/or cheap. and all the really hard stuff is being tackled in zb mb or the like. dang, the whole zb revolution really took the wind out of the traditional modeler market.

remember when people used to talk about the quality of cd players when they first came out... pros and cons etc? IT DOESN'T MATTER ANYMORE! we're beyond that technological hurtle such that everything that makes it to market is really pretty good. mp3 players are getting there, etc.

so unfortunately, what was one of lw's selling points (its modeler) has basically become obviated.

the biggest thing it has left is the renderer which still provides a lot of bang for buck comparative value.

jin

zardoz
07-02-2008, 04:16 AM
working on a company where I am the only lightwaver there...and 10 other dudes using max...ah well. It's funny to see that as time passes by they use less of the stuff that max has and we want (like the parametric objects, modifier stack, etc...) and use more 'poly modeling' like we do. And it's funny to see them saying to new guys "don't do it like that, do it like this..I learned this just a few months ago and this is really cool..." and we've been doing that in LW for years now. So I'm not jealous because I now what they have and what we have is good.
If only our spline modeling was better.

cresshead
07-02-2008, 06:50 AM
In your case, what's in lw that isn't in max, modeller wise? I find them both efficient.
One thing I like about max is the xyz control in the perspective mode. Very useful and lw doesn't have it. One thing that max doesn't have is backgound image that's locked in all viewport. Have to rely on polygon planes to add blueprints, etc. Other than that they seem similar to me.

That's what i got on the top of my head that I want for both appz and strictly for poly modelling. Nurbs can be done elsewhere better like rhino 3d. Moi is cheap. Anyone using it?

no, you can have a background image in max actually....image planes are more useful and that's why max and maya users prefer that way usually...you can animate the opacity and the location of the planes for example.

geo_n
07-02-2008, 10:55 AM
no, you can have a background image in max actually....image planes are more useful and that's why max and maya users prefer that way usually...you can animate the opacity and the location of the planes for example.

You can but it doesn't work like lw. In lw if you put an image in top, front, left, etc, they all zoom in and move at the same time, rate, etc and its locked. In max when I did spline modelling the bg image would be misplaced to the mesh when I pan or zoom. That's why I used image planes, to lock their position to the mesh. But its obsuring my view sometimes.

Anyway I was modelling today in max and I wished there was easy mirroring in max in subobject mode. I have to detach element THEN mirror. I asked the max guru in our office and thats the way to do it. Its usually I have different workflow in max and start with symmetry modifier to avoid this situation. But the model is from freelance I'm editing.

But then again I wish lw had a better lattice and bridge tool. And maya's wedge faces.:D

Stooch
07-02-2008, 11:04 AM
Another thing.

I really like the fast TAB subpatch toggle workflow of Modeler/modo - It is a defining feature of these applications. I really miss that whenever I use something that doesn't work as fluently as this.

maya has a better tool. you can hit flip between 3 different smoothing levels instantly :)

cresshead
07-02-2008, 11:37 AM
You can but it doesn't work like lw. In lw if you put an image in top, front, left, etc, they all zoom in and move at the same time, rate, etc and its locked. In max when I did spline modelling the bg image would be misplaced to the mesh when I pan or zoom. That's why I used image planes, to lock their position to the mesh. But its obsuring my view sometimes.

Anyway I was modelling today in max and I wished there was easy mirroring in max in subobject mode. I have to detach element THEN mirror. I asked the max guru in our office and thats the way to do it. Its usually I have different workflow in max and start with symmetry modifier to avoid this situation. But the model is from freelance I'm editing.

also modeling in see thru mode on the actual model is really nice too...

But then again I wish lw had a better lattice and bridge tool.
....

And maya's wedge faces.:D

use the zoom all tool found above the pan tool

re 'obsuring my view ' that's what animation for modeling is for...if only lightwave had it [B]now rather than lw10...simply animate your materials from opaque to see thru over say 4 frames and or animate the planes away from the world centre..now with your timeline shortcut keys you can adjust the opacity of the planes and/or move them from view...you can also FREEZE them so you don't accidentlly touch/move them



so why can't you add a symmetry modifier and show end result in edit poly?

as for a lattice....lightwave has been mssing this basic modeling/animation tool FOREVER!:hey:

okay...stepping of my max soapbox!:dance:

cresshead
07-02-2008, 11:40 AM
maya has a better tool. you can hit flip between 3 different smoothing levels instantly :)

and xsi has the = and - keys....
and silo has...errmm...if it remember right the 'c' key....cont+c adds shift+c reduces.....i think!:stumped:

bobakabob
07-02-2008, 04:19 PM
okay...stepping of my max soapbox!:dance:

Thanks.

cresshead
07-02-2008, 04:39 PM
IMHO ZBrush is the most innovative modeller of recent times which has totally redefined 3D. It fits beautifully with LW at the moment but if it ever developed intuitive poly modelling tools and animation tools it would consume everything in its path 8~

i we're hearing that the next update for Zbrush is due for siggy 2008 with some cool additions....now i just wonder how they can make zbrush BETTER..:thumbsup:

bobakabob
07-02-2008, 04:50 PM
i we're hearing that the next update for Zbrush is due for siggy 2008 with some cool additions....now i just wonder how they can make zbrush BETTER..:thumbsup:

Yeah, definitely an app to watch for innovations... ZBrush is rewriting the 3D book! Exciting times. ZB character animation is surely not that far away. The transpose system could be a first step towards character rigging. But not as we know it ;)

stib
07-02-2008, 06:26 PM
But then again I wish lw had a better lattice and bridge tool.

as far as bridge tools go, have you tried this one? (http://www.lwplugindb.com/Plugin.aspx?id=543bd25f)

AbnRanger
07-03-2008, 02:15 AM
working on a company where I am the only lightwaver there...and 10 other dudes using max...ah well. It's funny to see that as time passes by they use less of the stuff that max has and we want (like the parametric objects, modifier stack, etc...) and use more 'poly modeling' like we do. And it's funny to see them saying to new guys "don't do it like that, do it like this..I learned this just a few months ago and this is really cool..." and we've been doing that in LW for years now. So I'm not jealous because I now what they have and what we have is good.
If only our spline modeling was better.I'm sorry, but they will ALWAYS use the modifier stack in Max...that's like saying they drive to work without touching the gas pedal. :screwy:
They will always use the axis/transform gizmos (modeler doesn't have). They will always find ways to animate modeling functions. They will regularly use instances.

I kind of like my "Clunky" gizmos and "Clunky" RMB quad menus...and if the much faster mesh-editing speed (than LW's Modeler) is "Clunky," then give me the clunkiest thing they have. :D
The Command Panel (where virtually all the work is done if you aren't using hotkeys) is about 99% TEXT BUTTONS. Oh, the madness...all of those miserable...uh, umm...text buttons. Nobody ever mentioned that...just the few icons on top that I rarely use.
If a few icons along the top scare you, and make the program "Clunky" the problem certainly isn't with the program...it's solely with the user.

zardoz
07-03-2008, 04:08 AM
yes I know that they always use the modifier stack.
But as you probably know for some of the stuff we've been doing for ages they use Polyboost.
And I have to agree with you the mesh editing speed is really good.

Iain
07-03-2008, 04:41 AM
Modelling in Max is superb and always has been.

It is far more complex than modeler so naturally it is less intuitive or straight forward, usually the reason giving for hating it.

Now the renderer, on the other hand, is relatively poor but then they give you Mental Ray and you also have the option of vray, brazil, final render etc all of which are excellent.

AbnRanger
07-03-2008, 06:07 AM
Modelling in Max is superb and always has been.

It is far more complex than modeler so naturally it is less intuitive or straight forward, usually the reason giving for hating it.

Now the renderer, on the other hand, is relatively poor but then they give you Mental Ray and you also have the option of vray, brazil, final render etc all of which are excellent.When Layout and Modeler finally are integrated and the CA & modeling tools get brought up to date (and better consolidated), then that's where LW can really shine...with the best native renderer. Mental Ray with it's Arch & Design shaders is nice in many respects, but at the end of the day, it has too many incompatiblities in Max...too many "gotcha's." Especially with any sort of volumetrics.
I'd say, if they come that far, and perhaps bundle FPrime with each license, it would be hard for the industry to continue overlooking LW at that point.

cresshead
07-03-2008, 06:39 AM
I'm sorry, but they will ALWAYS use the modifier stack in Max...that's like saying they drive to work without touching the gas pedal. :screwy:
They will always use the axis/transform gizmos (modeler doesn't have). They will always find ways to animate modeling functions. They will regularly use instances.

I kind of like my "Clunky" gizmos and "Clunky" RMB quad menus...and if the much faster mesh-editing speed (than LW's Modeler) is "Clunky," then give me the clunkiest thing they have. :D
The Command Panel (where virtually all the work is done if you aren't using hotkeys) is about 99% TEXT BUTTONS. Oh, the madness...all of those miserable...uh, umm...text buttons. Nobody ever mentioned that...just the few icons on top that I rarely use.
If a few icons along the top scare you, and make the program "Clunky" the problem certainly isn't with the program...it's solely with the user.

unfortunatley your talking mostly to the unconvertable:D

lightwave i still a good app..''not all there'' same as xsi isn't 'all there' and modo isn't 'all there'

in my personal opinion which i'd guess most will not agree with there's only 3 full apps currently.

maya
max
cinema4d

xsi lacks real world scale, units, ies lighting and user friendly materials, rendering and particles and restrictive render nodes and resticitve screen resolutions for workspace...some great tools but quite a few basics are not there....xsi almost makes it in there..maybe version 7 will ammend long standing missing tools/workflows.

lightwave lacks good character tools and a somwhat dusty modeler and no modeling in animation...no lattice etc.

silo lacks rendering, animation

messiah lacks a modeler

houdini lacks a good modeler/poly tools

formz, sketchup, hexagon, wings 3d.

blender almost makes it into the 'all there camp'...as soon a ngons get int there and a tweek on the u.i. and it'll be number 4!

Chris S. (Fez)
07-03-2008, 07:11 AM
Yeah, A&D shaders are sweet but overall I think Lightwave/Fprime 9.5 BLOWS AWAY Max and Mental Ray in terms of surfacing and rendering. Especially memory management, which is great in scanline but terrible in Max's Mental Ray translator for print rez. I hope I am not breaking my NDA by saying 9.5 is awesome and getting better all the time.

Modeling in Lightwave is awesome but the slow CC subds and lack of consolidated toolset drove me to Max. The sticky keys, working pivot and viewport optimizations in 2008 clinched it...along with the third party Polyboost and MBtools scripts. However, out of the box I would go with Modeler in a second. It gets the job done and is massively more cost effective.

In any case, I would be willing to bet the folks who hate Max aren't using it the way I am... believe me, as soon as Lightwave offers the same speed and flexibility I will be the first to welcome Modeler back to my pipeline. I hate jumping back and forth.

geo_n
07-04-2008, 07:17 AM
use the zoom all tool found above the pan tool

re 'obsuring my view ' that's what animation for modeling is for...if only lightwave had it [B]now rather than lw10...simply animate your materials from opaque to see thru over say 4 frames and or animate the planes away from the world centre..now with your timeline shortcut keys you can adjust the opacity of the planes and/or move them from view...you can also FREEZE them so you don't accidentlly touch/move them



so why can't you add a symmetry modifier and show end result in edit poly?

as for a lattice....lightwave has been mssing this basic modeling/animation tool FOREVER!:hey:

okay...stepping of my max soapbox!:dance:

Ok will try that method. I usually just put the image planes in another layer to turn on and off. Just that in lightwave I never do anything to the bg image. I dont turn it off and it doesn't obscure my view. What I meant about the views is that all viewports in lw zoom and pan at the same focal point. A cad user once commented that its an amazing but probably unnoticed feature and its the first time he saw something like that. In other appz if you zoom or pan in one viewport the others dont move or isn't aligned to your focus with the active viewport. You can press shift z in max to zoom object extents in all viewports but its not the same as interactive viewport in lw.
Symmetry modifier can't mirror one element in an object. I want to mirror just one element,say a box in an object of 10 boxes, in subobject mode. So I have to detach it and then mirror. Or am I missing something?

cresshead
07-04-2008, 09:16 AM
Ok will try that method. I usually just put the image planes in another layer to turn on and off. Just that in lightwave I never do anything to the bg image. I dont turn it off and it doesn't obscure my view. What I meant about the views is that all viewports in lw zoom and pan at the same focal point. A cad user once commented that its an amazing but probably unnoticed feature and its the first time he saw something like that. In other appz if you zoom or pan in one viewport the others dont move or isn't aligned to your focus with the active viewport. You can press shift z in max to zoom object extents in all viewports but its not the same as interactive viewport in lw.
Symmetry modifier can't mirror one element in an object. I want to mirror just one element,say a box in an object of 10 boxes, in subobject mode. So I have to detach it and then mirror. Or am I missing something?

apples and oranges again...the bg image feature in lw is pretty good, just remember to save it to use it later on...also as good as it is sometimes you want/need a bg image in the perspective view...that's when image planes
come in real handy and animating their opacity and location is perfect workflow...in lw i often construct a spline line trace of the bg image so that i can place it on another layer to get a perspective bg 'image plane' of sorts
it's a good work around for the lack of image planes in lw

as for the linked viewports i personally found it very annoying and have ever since lw 7.0 always turned off the linking of viewports for pan and zoom...they just wind me up!:D

re>Symmetry modifier can't mirror one element in an object.
maybe you not understanding how to use objects and what an object is for
your sort of attatching objects makeing 1 large object where most probably
parenting the objects would be the way to go...in any case you can say
have the spout of the teapot 'mirrored' to the other side and still have the handle on that side as well with just referencing the teapot and deleting everything but the spout and mirroring it...selecting and moveing the whole teapot's spout will also move the referenced version as well.

cresshead
07-04-2008, 09:31 AM
re-3dsmax:-to explain further

make a teapot
convert to edit poly
clone it and tick make reference
on the referenced version add an edit poly modifier
delete when you don't need/want

back on your base version edit polys and the edits will propergate where there's the same verts/polys over to the referenced clone...on the clone you can mirror move ect it where you want but edits on the origional wil update the referenced clone a well.

references are a one way communication path
origional to>> referenced
instanced clones are two way origional>><<clone

and to get back to talking lw...woudl be nice to have instances and references in modeler or better still a unified lightwave at some point in the future.

geo_n
07-04-2008, 11:05 AM
apples and oranges again...the bg image feature in lw is pretty good, just remember to save it to use it later on...also as good as it is sometimes you want/need a bg image in the perspective view...that's when image planes
come in real handy and animating their opacity and location is perfect workflow...in lw i often construct a spline line trace of the bg image so that i can place it on another layer to get a perspective bg 'image plane' of sorts
it's a good work around for the lack of image planes in lw

as for the linked viewports i personally found it very annoying and have ever since lw 7.0 always turned off the linking of viewports for pan and zoom...they just wind me up!:D

re>Symmetry modifier can't mirror one element in an object.
maybe you not understanding how to use objects and what an object is for
your sort of attatching objects makeing 1 large object where most probably
parenting the objects would be the way to go...in any case you can say
have the spout of the teapot 'mirrored' to the other side and still have the handle on that side as well with just referencing the teapot and deleting everything but the spout and mirroring it...selecting and moveing the whole teapot's spout will also move the referenced version as well.

Ah you're not getting it. To explain further the workflow. This model came from a freelance hired by the company. I HAD to edit it:thumbsdow. Its a "gun" and those two elements in the gun highlighted in red don't need to be parented of course. Its part of the gun. But he forgot to mirror to the other side so actually that would be just one highlight before. I detached and mirrored it. So am I missing something?

http://img353.imageshack.us/img353/369/38755327oe1.jpg (http://imageshack.us)


As for locked interactive viewport, I guess some people don't like it. I like it. So yes its apples and oranges.

sammael
07-04-2008, 11:10 AM
and to get back to talking lw...woudl be nice to have instances and references in modeler or better still a unified lightwave at some point in the future.

Unified LW I agree, this seems like where the no instancing/referencing problem originates... the seperate modeler thing. It would be so nice to have elements within one object file that can be modified each on their own individual axis like in max.

AbnRanger
07-04-2008, 01:04 PM
Ah you're not getting it. To explain further the workflow. This model came from a freelance hired by the company. I HAD to edit it:thumbsdow. Its a "gun" and those two elements in the gun highlighted in red don't need to be parented of course. Its part of the gun. But he forgot to mirror to the other side so actually that would be just one highlight before. I detached and mirrored it. So am I missing something? As for locked interactive viewport, I guess some people don't like it. I like it. So yes its apples and oranges.If you SHIFT+drag the selected element or group of poly's it gives you the option to clone to object or element...so in that case, you didn't even need to mirror.

Nevertheless, I see where you are trying to go with this. Max treats sub-objects as just that, and only allows you to mirror objects (now, clone the subobject you can do just as quickly)...so yes, you simply have to make an extra click to detach, then attach. So, that's going to kill your workflow?

This isn't even an issue at all. I'm not sure why you'd even bring this up...we could go back and forth all day nitpicking about having to take an extra step here or there in LW to do the same in Max (or any other program) or vice versa.
However, major features such as the lack of instances, not having an integrated environment between modeling and animating, having the slowest mesh editing capability in the field, lack of tool consolidation (why have separate tools like Move and Move Plus, or Translate and Translate Plus?...make it ONE freakin' tool with hotkey or popup menu options for the whole tool)...this is something that really needs Newtek's attention, and none to soon.

cresshead
07-04-2008, 02:45 PM
Ah you're not getting it. To explain further the workflow. This model came from a freelance hired by the company. I HAD to edit it:thumbsdow. Its a "gun" and those two elements in the gun highlighted in red don't need to be parented of course. Its part of the gun. But he forgot to mirror to the other side so actually that would be just one highlight before. I detached and mirrored it. So am I missing something?

http://img353.imageshack.us/img353/369/38755327oe1.jpg (http://imageshack.us)


As for locked interactive viewport, I guess some people don't like it. I like it. So yes its apples and oranges.

your modeling conundrum over in max is nothing to even be slightly concerned with..as AbnRanger pointed out click click done...how hard it that?:)

here's a cool idea to improve lightwave overall>

intergrate silo into lightwave layout...ditch modeler altogether...that way you get amodelerr IN layout with sculpting tools...
add a dash 3dpaint [3d brush...whatever it's called!] and you'll get painting in layout as well as modeling....

pull out most of the rigging and animation tools out of layout and replace with messiah...

basically keep lightwave renderer and nodes....replace the rest and add instancing:D

....ducking for cover now!:devil:

cresshead
07-04-2008, 02:51 PM
err was 3d coat!....drat that name just doesn't stick in my head!

Cageman
07-04-2008, 03:22 PM
i see wavers get bent out of shape when someone disses their app of choice without having tried it, least of all mastered it, but how many wavers make their choices having completely mastered the ins and outs of other apps?

Hmm... some people disses LW in order to belittle you. I've been in that situation many times before and it is quite easy to see if someone has the intention to feel superior or to point out flaws. Comments like "why are you still using LW?" is something I've heard enough of and many times those who say things like that have very little or no knowledge about the software. Makes you wonder... (though, it was a long time since that happend now). :)

To master an app in/out is quite a daunting task. I certanly don't master LW in/out and even more so, I have very little experience with Maya in other than rigging/animation but even there I have limited knowledge. But based on the frustration I see when our renderpipe isn't working out as it should (Maya/MR) and this is after some heavy custom coding in both MEL and C, I'm not at all tempted at going down that road myself. The same can be said about those who have tried LW but never "figured it out". But usually those guys say that; "LW didn't work for me, but I see good things comming out of it, so it's probably me..."

I diss both LW and Maya from time to time though, but on specific features or lack thereoff. I've never actually used 3DS Max, XSI or Blender, and I would be a complete idiot if I started to diss those apps based on my limited knowledge of them. But somehow it is ok for a Maya veteran to belittle people who use LW based on limited or no knowledge of it? Have I the right to become somewhat upset by such behaviour? I think so... :)

It seems that many wavers have experience with other apps in production, while many Maya artists only have used Maya in production; that is what I've come to understand based on what the schools here in Sweden teach.

Oh well... :)

Let the app-war begin...again... ;)

AbnRanger
07-04-2008, 04:17 PM
Not sure if this is what you mean.

But you can have several items in one object file and have them on their own individual axis in layout. Just put the items in seperate layers and set individual pivots.

On further inspection of your sentence, you probably mean elements as in polygons/edges having their own axis and the ability to modify them with a gizmo?

Or something else? :)I think he's saying that you can select objects or elements, select Local or Gimbal axis and when you do something like rotate or scale, they will do so on their individual axis, idependent of each other...well, locally instead of globally. And no need to separate into different layers or set points...once you select "local" axis your ready. Hope that explains it.

sammael
07-04-2008, 09:10 PM
Not sure if this is what you mean.

But you can have several items in one object file and have them on their own individual axis in layout. Just put the items in seperate layers and set individual pivots.

On further inspection of your sentence, you probably mean elements as in polygons/edges having their own axis and the ability to modify them with a gizmo?

Or something else? :)

No I meant what you thought I meant but I had a few beers last night so I am sorry about the badly worded explanation.

I am more talking about the ability to have say 10000 elements to an object, say a trees leaves or something and each of those would have it's own axis (within a single layer). It would be nice to be able to set the axis on an element and then clone it, each element having its axis in the same place as the original. Ideally you would be able to randomise/offset the animation for each element using a few new and intuitive tools. (each element would be an instance/reference)
It has always frustrated me having to have a new layer for each moving part.

I realise HD instance probably does exactly what im talking about but I really think LW should have this built in and from the modeling phase up, it would make the program so much more powerful.
What I was getting at is that it seems like because of the way that modeler works it is hard for them to impliment this otherwise we would have it already, an intergrated LW would probably make this type of thing easier for the developers to impliment and less confusing for the end user.
I am all for having a seperate modeling and Layout interface swapable from within the one GUI. It just makes so much more sense.

sammael
07-04-2008, 09:25 PM
I think he's saying that you can select objects or elements, select Local or Gimbal axis and when you do something like rotate or scale, they will do so on their individual axis, idependent of each other...well, locally instead of globally. And no need to separate into different layers or set points...once you select "local" axis your ready. Hope that explains it.

Umm yes this is what I meant.

geo_n
07-04-2008, 11:18 PM
If you SHIFT+drag the selected element or group of poly's it gives you the option to clone to object or element...so in that case, you didn't even need to mirror.

Nevertheless, I see where you are trying to go with this. Max treats sub-objects as just that, and only allows you to mirror objects (now, clone the subobject you can do just as quickly)...so yes, you simply have to make an extra click to detach, then attach. So, that's going to kill your workflow?

This isn't even an issue at all. I'm not sure why you'd even bring this up...we could go back and forth all day nitpicking about having to take an extra step here or there in LW to do the same in Max (or any other program) or vice versa.
However, major features such as the lack of instances, not having an integrated environment between modeling and animating, having the slowest mesh editing capability in the field, lack of tool consolidation (why have separate tools like Move and Move Plus, or Translate and Translate Plus?...make it ONE freakin' tool with hotkey or popup menu options for the whole tool)...this is something that really needs Newtek's attention, and none to soon.

Did I say its going to kill my workflow? Dont assume pls. :jester:
I brought up commands in appz that I wish were there for max,lw,etc, in a previous post. You commented on it so I just explained further for you to get it. But I think you're just justifying max's lack of a simple mirror element tool now. I just want to improve both max and lw because I use them.
Cloning element would be to slow method in this case. I'd have to place it manually, and rotate it, and flip it on the other side to be the same as a simple mirrored element. Then some manual placement in max for a rather simple command in lw or autocad. Check out how autocad does mirroring. Its one of the best and someone in lw community made a script, store xzy mirror, it makes mirroring in lw similar to autocad. Efficiency is key in Japan.

geo_n
07-04-2008, 11:21 PM
your modeling conundrum over in max is nothing to even be slightly concerned with..as AbnRanger pointed out click click done...how hard it that?:)



you should ask the thread starter to click click his way while doing his work. I'm sure he'll love it! :) The thread title is very appopriate indeed.

IMI
07-05-2008, 10:03 AM
you pick one. and more or less by virtue of your choice, THAT'S the right one. : )

can we do any less with 3d apps? i say thee nay!

jin

p.s. i am NOT a luxology fan but i gotta say that i'm impressed that it's getting credit for being used in wall-e.... that's the kind of thing that makes me stand up and take notice.

Yeah, I would agree. I've actually tried them all, when demos have been available, which is more or less every version of Max to date, and the maya PLE, plus XSI Mod Tool, all versions of modo to date, and everything else I could try out.
Well, I am by no means any kind of expert modeler, but I can usually model what I want, if I try hard enough, and get fairly close, and I've learned many of the tools and workflows of these apps over the years.
So, not being a professional notwithstanding, I feel at largely justified in saying I simply don't like modeling in apps other than LW and modo. Modo, because in so many ways it's very similar to Modeler, but although I've done more modeling in modo lately, just about everything I do goes repeatedly back and forth between LW and modo.

Which brings me to my next point, jin... just curious, why do you not like modo? I know you're an animator, so modo's a definite bad choice for that currently, but is it the program you don't like, or is it Lux? Personally I think the people at Lux are pretty cool and have a real good thing going, which will only get better, but aside from that, I find the modo modeling workflow just tremendously intuitive, and chock full of all the goodies I've been wishing LW modeler would have had by now.

But like I've said before, I'll never ditch LW, primarily because the things I know about it, I know thoroughly. I might not upgrade to v 10 right away, or maybe even at all, but that depends on the direction they take it and what they improve or add, but I'll at least be using v. 9.x for a good while.

Well, I hope you see this as a somewhat informed decision why I personally prefer LW to all of the other apps besides modo ( I actually view LW as an extension of modo and modo as an extension of LW, since I use them together so much; I don't really see one or the other as "better", but as gears in the same machine). It's not "fanboyism" at all, just practicality. LW can easily do what limited animation I do and then a whole lot more. I suppose if I were more into CA I would in fact force myself to learn maya, XSI, or Blender or max thoroughly.

I used to have you figured as just an anti-LW guy hanging out at a 'waver forum just to be contentious from time to time, but as time goes by I see more and more you are very right about most of the things you say about it, and other apps as well.

Jake
07-05-2008, 12:04 PM
IMHO ZBrush is the most innovative modeller of recent times which has totally redefined 3D. It fits beautifully with LW at the moment but if it ever developed intuitive poly modelling tools and animation tools it would consume everything in its path

You know I think my main problem with ZBrush is that it's not really a good "modeling" tool. It's a great sculpting tool. But in terms of simple things like creating basic geometry to use, extruding geometry off of an existing mesh, connecting meshes/welding vertices, etc. it lacks functionality basic to any proper modeling program. I mean, there's something there to use in terms of zspheres but it's nothing like what most modelers use, which is why its still so common for people to create base meshes in other apps. Once they add that basic foundation and some system of relating to 3d coordinates it will be unstoppable.

IMI
07-05-2008, 12:49 PM
You know I think my main problem with ZBrush is that it's not really a good "modeling" tool. It's a great sculpting tool. But in terms of simple things like creating basic geometry to use, extruding geometry off of an existing mesh, connecting meshes/welding vertices, etc. it lacks functionality basic to any proper modeling program. I mean, there's something there to use in terms of zspheres but it's nothing like what most modelers use, which is why its still so common for people to create base meshes in other apps. Once they add that basic foundation and some system of relating to 3d coordinates it will be unstoppable.


I love ZBrush. Once I start working in ZB, I have a real hard time quitting it.
But I don't know about all that. With its current architecture, could they even add more traditional poly modeling tools to it? Without creating a bloated mess?
I'd just as soon see them refine and perfect their current tools, rather than trying to compete in an already bloated market. There are even completely free modeling packages, such as Wings and Blender, which are more than capable of creating a good ZBrush-ready model. And fairly capable 3D apps that are not free, but quite inexpensive, such as Carrarra or Hexagon.

At the same time, I don't know why people put themselves through the torture of Z Sphere modeling. Yuck. I can make the same thing in LW or modo in about 1/100th of the time, with 155% less cursing, and have far more control over every aspect of it, more intuitively.

Zbrush is an incredibly innovative niche app, which does several things faaaarrrrr better than any of its competition, and I really hope they stay on that path, and completely avoid trying to become the next 3ds max.

jin choung
07-05-2008, 03:22 PM
It seems that many wavers have experience with other apps in production, while many Maya artists only have used Maya in production;


meh, not really imo. sure, there are some lwers who know other apps... but there are tons that have a FLEETING experience with them or none at all... the situation is the same on the lw side as it is on the maya side. in addition, on the lw side, you often get an inferiority complex + fear + threatened dynamic that plays into it as well....

you may see the unreasonableness of dissing apps you don't know but as with religion, there are many who don't understand that. both maya and lw.

and so yes, i think getting bent out of shape because of this is silly. everybody on every side does it. that's the equalizer.

jin

Cageman
07-05-2008, 03:38 PM
and so yes, i think getting bent out of shape because of this is silly. everybody on every side does it. that's the equalizer.

jin

Ignorance IS silly, I agree... :)

jin choung
07-05-2008, 03:54 PM
hey imi,

thanks for the kind and generous words.


Yeah, I would agree. I've actually tried them all, when demos have been available, which is more or less every version of Max to date, and the maya PLE, plus XSI Mod Tool, all versions of modo to date, and everything else I could try out.
Well, I am by no means any kind of expert modeler, but I can usually model what I want, if I try hard enough, and get fairly close, and I've learned many of the tools and workflows of these apps over the years.

you are decidedly the exception then.


Which brings me to my next point, jin... just curious, why do you not like modo? I know you're an animator, so modo's a definite bad choice for that currently, but is it the program you don't like, or is it Lux? Personally I think the people at Lux are pretty cool and have a real good thing going, which will only get better, but aside from that, I find the modo modeling workflow just tremendously intuitive, and chock full of all the goodies I've been wishing LW modeler would have had by now.

i dislike modo primarily because of price. imo, in this day and age, it is RIDICULOUS for a modeler to be that expensive... especially since it started life not having the sculpting and rendering features it does now.

also, despite countless claims to the contrary, it's still the lw modeler core that they're working off of so it just doesn't make monetary sense to me. especially when, when it comes to poly modeling (without sculpting) there is a threshold beyond which it really DOESN'T MATTER. there is a threshold beyond which you can pretty much do anything you need to do and it's pretty much just as fast. and lw's modeler is comfortably beyond that threshold. (not to mention many more cheaper apps like isilo, hexagon, blender that offer the same features).

modo, IMO (emphasized), is not a GOOD VALUE (especially considering similar apps). and that offends me.

BUT, if their ultimate goal is to do a ground zero rewrite of an complete 3d suite, if their ultimate goal is to make a full featured 3d app that has animation as well as modeling ala lw, max, maya, etc:

i think it was TOTALLY SMART to scrap the animation part and build the app on the modeler core. in lw, imo, THAT was the thing worth keeping. layout needs to be totally re-thought, re-done and they are smart to have kept modeler instead of viceversa... and this is why i lament that it seems that newtek is going the other way round (building modeler into layout)... sigh.

(and the fact that luxology added .mdd import as the first big animation push indicates intelligence and good taste... if they ever get a total 3d app with smart bone workflows [orientation, snapping, etc] and constraints system and such AND the price is about what it is now, i will radically reconsider)



It's not "fanboyism" at all, just practicality. LW can easily do what limited animation I do and then a whole lot more. I suppose if I were more into CA I would in fact force myself to learn maya, XSI, or Blender or max thoroughly.

pfffft... that's not even approaching fanboyism... if you're trying for fanboyism, you gotta really try for it!

i've never ever ever ever criticized any statement to the effect of "lw does what i need it to do".... what can i say? "NO IT DOESN'T!" : )

fwiw, personally, i really still like lw's modeler too... it's coming apart at the seams and the menus are ridiculous now but it can do everything you need it to do... if not out of the box, certainly with flay.com and lwcad....

jin

jin choung
07-05-2008, 04:09 PM
I'd just as soon see them refine and perfect their current tools, rather than trying to compete in an already bloated market. There are even completely free modeling packages, such as Wings and Blender, which are more than capable of creating a good ZBrush-ready model.

right. i completely agree. it doesn't provide basic, traditional mesh processing and it's not even TRYING... and that's fine. more than fine. that's not what it's trying to be.



At the same time, I don't know why people put themselves through the torture of Z Sphere modeling. Yuck. I can make the same thing in LW or modo in about 1/100th of the time, with 155% less cursing, and have far more control over every aspect of it, more intuitively.

i don't completely agree but i definitely understand (and can relate) to what you're saying... right now, it is basically a conceit... it IS after all, still box modeling! especially when you can see that you have to determine XYZ subdivision resolution to get things like fingers! (of course, they say that's not the way you should go about multi branching structures like fingers but nonetheless)....

but i see zspheres as truly PROMISING.... what it lacks now is "intelligence"... if i can make things like a hand and not have to worry about resolution, if it can determine and take care of that for me automagically, THEN, it would fing rock... it would be like the ULTIMATE version of "metaballs" where everything resolves into a nice quad mesh making it useful instead of a toy as metaballs are currently!



Zbrush is an incredibly innovative niche app, which does several things faaaarrrrr better than any of its competition, and I really hope they stay on that path, and completely avoid trying to become the next 3ds max.

yup. zb is the app to beat currently. best in class for sculptors.

jin

IMI
07-05-2008, 08:08 PM
Heya Jin, I'm not gonna comment too much on your reasons for disagreeing with Lux, except to say I can see your point. It *is* a great modeling app, and it *is* capable of turning out some really, really nice renders, but, yes, it *is* overpriced, IMO.

Well, people could argue with that, and say with the price you get the service, the app to make 100 million times the investment, blahblahblah, but prices that high don't seem entirely realistic these days.
I mean, yeah, you have to pay your developers, and they have to be able to compete.. but I imagine the first graphite pencil was sold for far more than its actual worth...

Which brings us to the point of deciding "worth"... I guess as long as there is a demand, there will be a supply, and the suppliers will determine the worth based on how much they can get away with charging, as companies and individuals gleefully shell out their cash...
Blender will come into its own as The Great Equalizer. ;)

Jake
07-05-2008, 09:16 PM
But I don't know about all that. With its current architecture, could they even add more traditional poly modeling tools to it? Without creating a bloated mess?
I'd just as soon see them refine and perfect their current tools, rather than trying to compete in an already bloated market. There are even completely free modeling packages, such as Wings and Blender, which are more than capable of creating a good ZBrush-ready model. And fairly capable 3D apps that are not free, but quite inexpensive, such as Carrarra or Hexagon.

At the same time, I don't know why people put themselves through the torture of Z Sphere modeling. Yuck. I can make the same thing in LW or modo in about 1/100th of the time, with 155% less cursing, and have far more control over every aspect of it, more intuitively.

I disagree. If you've got this app with tremendous modeling ability, why shouldn't it be able to come up a simple base mesh to use as a point of departure? Why would I have to leave the program and use something else merely to come up with a simple mesh to use as a basis for a sculpt?

I think zspheres is Pixologic's answer to this problem and I would expect them to further refine the process in the next version. There are people who can good results from it now.

IMI
07-05-2008, 09:56 PM
I disagree. If you've got this app with tremendous modeling ability, why shouldn't it be able to come up a simple base mesh to use as a point of departure? Why would I have to leave the program and use something else merely to come up with a simple mesh to use as a basis for a sculpt?

I think zspheres is Pixologic's answer to this problem and I would expect them to further refine the process in the next version. There are people who can good results from it now.


There's no good reason I can see to discontinue what they have with Z Spheres. I was just responding to the idea of them trying to integrate more traditional modeling into it. We wouldn't want to to bloat up and become a home for wayward plugins, now, would we?

Why would you "leave the program"?
Because that's just what one does, I think. Such is life with computers - we are always in a state of in-between, relying on something or other else, whether it be Photoshop or NotePad... or even ZBrush.
To wish it to become a "Full-Featured App" is to wish the developers to abandon their rich heritage of originality and compete where there is no competition, for the sake of a small minority.
I gather, the majority of ZB customers are pros who need a normal map or a displacement map for their latest Maya movie, and there's all kinds of reasons to give them more of the same, but improved and expanded upon.
There really is little justification for them to pay their developers to write code which makes, say, edges bevel, while there's *ALL* kinds of reasons to improve on the current theme, and the current demand.

Jake
07-05-2008, 10:31 PM
The limitations of the current theme theme have to due manipulation of meshes. Particulary generating new geometry and manipulating current geometry beyond the typical z sculpting. It's like ZBrush gives you a piece of virtual clay to work with. You can sculpt it and stretch it out easily, but you generally can't just slap more clay on there unless you're using zspheres which has limitations. The retopologizing functionality probably solves the problem but it's not quite as easy or straightforward as it could be.


To wish it to become a "Full-Featured App" is to wish the developers to abandon their rich heritage of originality and compete where there is no competition, for the sake of a small minority.

Pixologic has always viewed it as a full featured app. It's designed so that you can sculpt, texture, render, etc. in one application. It was envisoned as a tool for digital artists, that's the heritage lol. It wasn't developed to be a utility app for 3d programs, though it obviously has had the most impact in that regard. Improving the mesh generation tools so that you don't need to rely on another program is something a lot of dedicated ZBrushers are asking for and has little to do with competing with other apps. I also fail to see how improving this functionality is going to make it "bloated".

Surrealist.
07-06-2008, 10:16 AM
That is a very interesting review of modo. For all the reasons you stated, I have been always keeping an eye on what they do and see what happens with LW. I am very bias towards Modo of course because I started with LW in the beginning when those guys (Stewart and Allan) created it. Unfortunately, at the moment I need a full app. But I am always keeping an eye on what they do. So thanks for the full review. Very interesting.

IMI
07-06-2008, 10:41 AM
What neverko said. I completely agree. Modo 302 is really an amazing app. I can't think of too much I don't like about it. The lights give me trouble sometimes, trying to get them just right. it never really remembers my interface settings, and it crashes if I try to open it with a config that had a viewport dragged to my second monitor, but aside from that, it's a pleasure to use. :)

Surrealist.
07-06-2008, 11:53 AM
It wasn't really a review. I just tried a simple rundown of why I believe there's good value to be had - depending on what you do.

There's certainly a couple of strange omissions in the current toolset as well. The lack of light linking in the current rendering solution is a bit strange seeing how well fleshed out all the other basics of rendering are. And I do consider light linking a part of the core rendering toolset that should be present. I can make do without it, but it would certainly add a lot of needed flexibility.

True.I found it extremely helpful in understanding more about that app, so thanks. :thumbsup:

Cageman
07-06-2008, 01:07 PM
in the case of modo one popular misconception is that modo is "just a modeler" when it is in fact a complete and solid production tool for many visualization tasks and an incredible support application for many other tasks.

Yep..

And since I'm a member in the PointOven Mailinglist I've seen John Knoll posting questions about PointOven for Modo which he used to bring 75 characters (yep... it was somewhere around that many...yes) from Maya to Modo for rendering...

So, yeah... people, even at ILM, are trying out Modo for more than just modeling...

EDIT: And yes...those were animated characters as far as I understood...

jin choung
07-06-2008, 03:07 PM
On a final note concerning value. I think the single most price inflated application out there is Photoshop - especially in the EU where it's pure extortion. It's also developing at a snails pace. Why the hell doesn't it provide a nodal workflow yet? It would be a million times better than the antiquated and stupid layer and channel system it has used since 3.0 or was it 2.5? Right there there is something that is criminally priced and not following with the new trends at all.

i soooooooooo completely agree.

but as you say, value is subjective. there are lots of folks doing lots of things that would disagree with you and me.

but again, in the subjectivity i find myself in my own skull, considering RELATIVE VALUE compared against the likes of lw, silo, hex, zbrush and of course blender - pound for pound, capability for capability.... imo, modo is ludicrously overpriced.

jin

p.s. oh, and the fact that they had the gall to CHARGE FOR THE DEMO initially made me really really really hate them and wished they would all burn in hell... : )

jin choung
07-06-2008, 03:19 PM
I don't dispute that there's a few error messages in the Boolean code that hints at some code reuse. Personally, from my experience with modo, I think it's limited to some code reuse in a few tools. There's nothing hinting at parts of Modeler in the core parts that really matter.

Also the entire UI and behaviour is completely different from Modeler as well, I don't really think we can talk about "core" reuse here.

well i don't dispute there have been lots of improvements made on the original lw modeler core but things like how vmaps are handled, endomorphs, etc... there's just a lot of evidence of lw still in modo.

and i don't think that's anything that needs to be denied or ashamed of.... certainly, with their development, they may be the equivalent of modeler v. 20 by now.... but the legacy is still there.

jin

jin choung
07-06-2008, 03:38 PM
No problem, Richard :) I just feel that when different software is being discussed, it is important to clear up the misconceptions that some people have about certain applications, in the case of modo one popular misconception is that modo is "just a modeler"

when it is in fact a complete and solid production tool for many visualization tasks and an incredible support application for many other tasks.

there's no misconception... but language in the latter half of the quote above is obfuscating marketing verbiage justifying the price....

precisely: modo is INDEED a modeler/scultpor and has texture painting and rendering and supports the importing of animation via .mdd.

there is no misconception - we can all see the features on their home page.

no misconception. just as there is no misconception when we say that zbrush is just a scuplting app that has a renderer and supports texture painting etc.

but usually, when people call zb or modo or mudbox or silo a modeling app, it's just to identify core competency and make a distinction - that it's not in the same class of application as lw or maya, xsi or blender... for modo, that distinction may be "as of yet". as i say, if they're on the path to being in that class, they're making some smart early moves. but that's not what it is yet.

jin

sammael
07-06-2008, 08:55 PM
Baking of almost any shading effect and GI? check. Baking of very high quality normal maps? check.


Amongst others this point is very interesting to me, I am sort of leaning towards Maya but the modeling aspect does my head in. LW is just so much easier/quicker perhaps I might look into modo again, I have not looked at it since version 2 but it did seem simple to use and un-cluttered.

Mike_RB
07-06-2008, 10:22 PM
imo, modo is ludicrously overpriced.

And imo modo is essentially free considering how much time it saved us on Iron Man UV'ing the Mark 1 suit. But I guess our opinions are shaped by time saved using an app and what that time is worth. If software can help you finish somthing faster and it's less than a couple grand it's totally worth it. Even Houdini at 7k would pay for itself in a single shot if you were trying to do somthing your other software couldn't do (which houdini is very good at).

jin choung
07-06-2008, 11:49 PM
so you live in a world where houdini and modo make sense to you. great.

i don't live there.

also, we're speaking about relative value too. modo and houdini make sense to you. great. but lot of great ILM productions have been made without relying on either.

so if it buys YOU something great.

but imo, it's still ludicrously overpriced for a modeler and in terms of uvs and such, i wonder how it compares to things even like silo or blender.


jin

Cageman
07-07-2008, 01:29 AM
And imo modo is essentially free considering how much time it saved us on Iron Man UV'ing the Mark 1 suit.

:)

A guy at work did all the modeling in Modo, but ended up unwrapping in LW with PLG because it was faster and produced better results for the stuff he did. :)

My point? Tools are tools and you use what you can in order to get the job done on time and with quality. Wether it is Modo, LW, Blender, Maya, XSI or Houdini doesn't really matter in the end...

colkai
07-07-2008, 01:43 AM
Yup, I'd agree with Jin here,
Any app, however priced, if it makes you money and you can recoup the cost due to speed etc, is "free".
Those of us not in that world however, have to think long and hard about every penny we spend. Even if Modo helped me model twice as quick, I still couldn't say "oh well, it's only the same price as a months wages", not at least, without ending up in hospital from the thumping the missus would give me for blowing the months wages on "some software that does the same as the other one". :p

Stooch
07-07-2008, 02:08 AM
Well, price and value is always completely subjective.

now they arent. one is either > or < or = based on features. nothing subjective here, infact its pretty concrete.



But for me there's no other modeling application that offers me the workflow that modo does.

umm yes there is, its called lightwave. Infact the vast majorty of modo tools, even naming conventions can be found in lightwave. its obvious that lux started with modeler and the workflow is very similar to modeler. the symmetry tools, the falloffs and various other tools are replete with severe and annoying limitations we all have come to know an loathe about modeler. Modo took all the existing tools we already have scattered in modeler and added gizmos to them while organizing them into something that looks at least semi intelligent. kudos for that, but not worth the asking price imo.



The interactive modeling tools with the toolpipe and all the action centers and falloffs. If you really make use of these tools intensively it becomes obvious pretty fast just how powerful this application is.

correction. NONE of the modo tools are interactive. they are stupid in fact because they tend to get dropped and require a DO, UNDO and REPEAT style of workflow. i cant believe that luxology made such a stupid decision to not develop atleast a one step history stack when everything else out there comes standard with this feature, this lack of interactivity alone makes modo overpriced imo. it should be in the silo pricing territory with a slight premium for its rendering.



I use the sculpting tools very often as well, not for highres character sculpting, but for deforming subd meshes to add irregularity to product packaging models and the like. As modeling tools the mesh sculpting is brilliant and fast.

me too, except i think that the displacements suck at what they were intended to do. you are talking about low level deformation that can be accomplished with soft selections and falloffs in any other package. at actual sculpting modo is buggy and unusable. ever used mayas artisan tools? you can deform your packaging all day, and do texturing and image stamping. it has been around for a very long time now.



And the renderer is simply amazing. It's render time subdivision and micropolygon displacement alone is worth the price of admission. Add fast and high quality GI to that and take a look at how it handles shading and AA in a renderman like fashion and it all adds up very quickly. Nice buffers and masking? check. Full scene occlusion? check. Baking of almost any shading effect and GI? check. Baking of very high quality normal maps? check. Interactive previewing? check. The previewer can even interactively preview any buffer.

this is the only part of your pov that ill agree with. but even then lightwave currently has a superior GI solution imo and the fact that its network rendering is proven and has been used in production while modo still feels like a hack in a serious production rendering setting, id say it still needs quite a bit more polishing. i tried to get a render farm service setup for the lux community and lux have completely shunned the guys, my suspicion is that modo is not ready for primetime renderfarm implementation based on the background information i have on it.

in closing i want to make a point that this professional here has used maya in production to pay for itself many many times over. same goes for lightwave, modo however has been nothing but an expensive toy in comparison. I paid for it as an investment because i believe that the luxology team has a real goal for developing their software even if it is overpriced. I feel more confident investing in luxology than newtek because its obvious to me that newtek has a track record for ignoring valuable input and seem to lack direction in their development. their marketing sucks as well and at the current rate i see them as a loser if modo keeps along their path. The constant hack fest of randomly slapping on features is akin to a toddler in a sandbox playing with its own feces.

Stooch
07-07-2008, 02:36 AM
fair enough :)

jin choung
07-07-2008, 02:41 AM
With all due respect and whatnot, you do come off as not really knowing a lot about modo, yet you speak loudly about it's value.

i do. but prefaced pretty consistently with "imo". i've never TRIED modo. the only things i know about it are from their demo movies. (and the price tag)

(
as i said, i think they should burn in hell for charging for the demo... : ) if ever there was a move that would earn my eternal enmity, that bit of ludicrous hubris was it baby.
)

and from what i've seen in those demo movies, it's a modeler (again, i know what it is, what features it has - its core competency, its identity to me is a MODELER) that costs $900.

if that works for you because you do product illustrations or whatever, great. for me, it would just be a modeler that has to interface with maya eventually... its identity to me is simply "$900 MODELER". i understand what you're saying about the role it plays in your work. great. i don't contest that. how can i? but i'm saying to me, it's a $900 modeler.

and for that - just for the TYPE OF APP IT IS - in this day and age - "imo", it's overpriced. i say that as easily as i say photoshop is overpriced. (or that a mercedes is overpriced for that matter... in the words of john hughes/steve martin - FOUR [email protected]#$ING WHEELS AND A SEAT)

as has been said before in this thread, value is relative.

if you say it works for you, what can i say? except great.

i say it DECIDEDLY DOES NOT WORK FOR ME. i cannot IMAGINE a modeler that is soooooo vastly superior in garden variety meat and potatoes plain jane poly modeling (!!! of all things !!!) that it justifies $900!

as i said, the very THRESHOLD OF ACCEPTABILITY is NOT AN ISSUE ANY MORE. seriously, almost anything will do! it's just poly modeling for cryin' out loud! and the rest i do in zbrush.

and considering a nurbs modeler like MOI is what.. $200.... yeah... modo does not make fiscal sense TO ME in any way, no matter how i look at it.

jin

Surrealist.
07-07-2008, 03:06 AM
LOL!

But what about this lack of interactive in the Modeling tools? You mean you can not interactively bevel, shift, shear, bend and so on? Not real clear on that.

Mike_RB
07-07-2008, 07:53 AM
LOL!

But what about this lack of interactive in the Modeling tools? You mean you can not interactively bevel, shift, shear, bend and so on? Not real clear on that.

You currently can't animate your bevels or go back and change them later. In that way it's very familiar to modeler, most of the modelling tools are completely destructive. However, you can select all the edges perpendicular in the bevel and do a local scale to reduce it, not perfect, but possible.

I have a ton of nit picks with modo. They have a long way to go. But some of what it does, it does so well that it more than makes up for the cost of entry. We don't touch LW modeler anymore, when we do open it to check on something or whatever we find it's so slow as to just reinforce our decision to stay out of it.

frantbk
07-07-2008, 09:07 AM
:D

I can see how I'm coming off as a raving modo fanboi, I really just wanted to defend the value for money aspect through some feature and workflow discussion. All from my perspective.

I don't think it's a perfect application. It has pitfalls like every other software and even though I am generally very satisfied, some choices like the lack of construction history and light linking can be very frustrating and this pops up on the appropriate message boards all the time. So clearly those things are in high demand.

Personally I even question the sanity of adding bones and the like in the near future (well, we don't know when they're scheduled to appear).

They need to work a lot more on expanding the functionality that's already there, instead of branching out further in new directions. I hope they've at least learned something from the mess they created with Franken... eh, LightWave :)

I agree with Neverko. The major complaint I have about modo has more to do with the people running Luxology than the product modo. The Lux team just does not like to do the grunt work of cleaning up a product and fixing their many of there problems. this is what ran Lightwave down from 6 -to- 8 when the lux team was developing lightwave.

I don't agree with the price for modo - $895.00. Four hundred is more like it for a modeler, painter, UV, and render program.

Chris S. (Fez)
07-07-2008, 09:08 AM
I hope the lack of Modeler development means that they are moving everything to Layout. Bummer for now but it is gonna be great later.

Nodal modeling operations equivalent to Max's non-destructive EditPoly stack should bring Lightwave back in the game.

Mike_RB
07-07-2008, 10:26 AM
I agree with Neverko. The major complaint I have about modo has more to do with the people running Luxology than the product modo. The Lux team just does not like to do the grunt work of cleaning up a product and fixing their many of there problems. this is what ran Lightwave down from 6 -to- 8 when the lux team was developing lightwave.

I don't agree with the price for modo - $895.00. Four hundred is more like it for a modeler, painter, UV, and render program.

Just to clarify, the lux team ran LW from 1.0 to 7.5. The rest is Newtek without them.

frantbk
07-07-2008, 05:40 PM
Just to clarify, the lux team ran LW from 1.0 to 7.5. The rest is Newtek without them.

OK, see how long it takes to correct the downhill slide once someone leaves a mess behind. :cursin: :grumpy: The problem with both NewTek and Luxology is that they are a a race track to cycle in new features so people will buy the next version. nobody can afford to take a year an half off to just work on problems. even if they did stop and fix the problems, once they released a new version they wipe out all of the fixes because new bugs and problems are generated . Still when many customers are complaining about problems that go back to modo 102 there is a long term problem adding up. That is what Luxology should learn about the problems with lightwave, no matter how much NT tried to out run the problems they are now forced to address the problems left behind and the problems generated when NT tried to look the other way with lgihtwave.

RTSchramm
07-07-2008, 11:13 PM
I been using Blender 2.46 recently and rigging a character using the new heated weight system was awesome. It doesn't have all the bone features that LW has, but its extremely predictable. Blender is still rough around the edges, but I think if the Blender team stays on track, Blender may soon be the number one 3d application for small 3D companies and hobbyists.

Out of the box you have excellent Cloth, hair, fur, liquids, dynamics, decent renderer, and particles. And unlike FiberFX or ClothFX, Blender is easier to set up and control. Texturing still sucks, but the UV mapping is as good as the PLG plug-in.

I wish as everyone else has stated previously that Newtek get their act together. LW was my first love, that I can never forget, but there are a lot of new 3D apps out there each with their own merits starting to get my attention.

As for Modo, I think it is an excellent modeler, and an excellent app for those who need an all in one solution for doing product shots. Not so good for animation. It is a bit pricey for what you get out of the box.

Rich

Cageman
07-08-2008, 01:55 AM
Just to clarify, the lux team ran LW from 1.0 to 7.5. The rest is Newtek without them.

Yeah... and finaly LW is progressing somewhere... :)

pooby
07-08-2008, 02:15 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike_RB
Just to clarify, the lux team ran LW from 1.0 to 7.5. The rest is Newtek without them.

OK, see how long it takes to correct the downhill slide once someone leaves a mess behind.

I would imagine that they 'left a mess behind' because they considered LW to have run it's course architecturally and realised that in order to move forward it was necessary to start from scratch- hence Modo.
In other words they hold the same view as you. Software DOES run it's course in time. LW HAD run it's course- it DID end up a mess.
Yet, they moved on but you are still using it.

( Before someone pipes up and says 'If LW's so cr*p, how come I'm making a good living out of it and use it on production every day?' or some such thing - when I say 'run its course' I am certainly not suggesting it's suddenly unusable. I am just saying that the LW architecture isnt a future-friendly foundation to build on.)

pooby
07-08-2008, 02:22 AM
Yeah... and finaly LW is progressing somewhere...


As is Modo. Everyone's happy :)

jin choung
07-08-2008, 03:34 AM
when I say 'run its course' I am certainly not suggesting it's suddenly unusable. I am just saying that the LW architecture isnt a future-friendly foundation to build on.

nicely put. very.

jin

bobakabob
07-08-2008, 04:08 AM
Haven't the Newtek team indicated there's a rewrite going on in the background?

In the meantime, at least LW 9 is pretty much rock solid in terms of stability. I'm old and grey enough to remember Lightwave 6...

pooby
07-08-2008, 05:20 AM
Haven't the Newtek team indicated there's a rewrite going on in the background?


Yes, or at least a parallel changeover. I'm not in any way criticising what the new team are doing by making my remarks. I just find it really odd that some people criticise the Luxology guys for doing pretty much the same thing but a few years ago.

As for me, I don't care who it is that makes which , as long as its good, its available and its something I can use.

colkai
07-08-2008, 05:41 AM
I am just saying that the LW architecture isnt a future-friendly foundation to build on.)

Yup, and Newtek are aware of this as we know, thus the rewrite taking place.

Nature of the beast, regardless of what did, or did not take place in the history & old teams etc etc.
Software is such that, sooner or later, you have to think about a re-write to anything to improve it's abilities. The chances of getting your design so future proof as to never need to amend the core code is remote because you just can't say what the future may hold.

Many of us here can recall times thinking, "I'll never use XXX memory / hard disk space/ processor power", so it's only logical the code written has limits based on what is "reasonable" at the time.

I only hope that he lack of movement in some area of LW, especially modeller, means that a ground-up rebuild is likely, rather than a patching process.

As with all things, time will tell, meantime, we sit, we watch and give our personal viewpoints, the real work is down to the dev teams.

frantbk
07-08-2008, 05:52 AM
I would imagine that they 'left a mess behind' because they considered LW to have run it's course architecturally and realised that in order to move forward it was necessary to start from scratch- hence Modo.
In other words they hold the same view as you. Software DOES run it's course in time. LW HAD run it's course- it DID end up a mess.
Yet, they moved on but you are still using it.

( Before someone pipes up and says 'If LW's so cr*p, how come I'm making a good living out of it and use it on production every day?' or some such thing - when I say 'run its course' I am certainly not suggesting it's suddenly unusable. I am just saying that the LW architecture isnt a future-friendly foundation to build on.)

If I remember Brad Peebler's posting (at Lux) Luxology tried to sale modo to NewTek, but NT didn't want to give up its product. Remember the whole modo product is two products Nexus the development system and modo the baked product. Modo has too much lightwave in it to be built from scratch. The basic structure of modo was probably prototyped to entice NT.

frantbk
07-08-2008, 06:05 AM
Yes, or at least a parallel changeover. I'm not in any way criticising what the new team are doing by making my remarks. I just find it really odd that some people criticise the Luxology guys for doing pretty much the same thing but a few years ago.

As for me, I don't care who it is that makes which , as long as its good, its available and its something I can use.

The criticism towards the Lux team has more to do with the lack of honest answers about their product and the direction and functions that they have failed to deliver or fix. The current interface is already bloated and showing signs of spinning into goop. The shader tree wasn't received with open arms by the modo community, and many are still calling for a nod system. everyone has converted to 64-bit with their older systems. Where is modo 32-bit, why is it still 32-bit? Luxology won't say what the hangup is, nor do they really give an honest answer about the failed linux project. This is from a program that is cutting edge technology and is the future?

The truth is modo/nexus has proved to be that cutting edge, nor has it changed the industry. That doesn't mean that it isn't a okay product for what it does. Modo is an okay product, modo just isn't the superman of the 3D world that Luxology claims.

Surrealist.
07-08-2008, 06:22 AM
Sell Modo to Newtek? You want to track down that post? And when exactly was that? That does not seem exactly right. I could be wrong. And I am saying I have no idea because I have not followed it at all. But that just does not sound right. Does not add up to everything else.

Surrealist.
07-08-2008, 06:27 AM
Every single Friday we deliver a couple of videos that explain where the software is headed. And then we get detailed feedback on what modo users think about that. This directly influences how modo is developed. We even ask modo users about business policies network rendering policies, how the website should be structured, how we should price training. All of these topics and more are openly discussed with our customers on our Forum.

Interview Link. (http://blog.novedge.com/2007/06/an_interview_wi_4.html)

And this sounds like a team of people interested in feedback. Again I have no real direct interaction on these matters, but I like what I hear from these guys.

tayotain2
07-08-2008, 06:35 AM
I think when modeller is itergrated to layout, it could be easy(i think... im not a coder :) ) to make a sclupting tools to it. Just thinking that we already have displacemets and we can control levels for it. We only need realtime paint to displacement map. and ofcourse straingt to object...

frantbk
07-08-2008, 06:45 AM
Sell Modo to Newtek? You want to track down that post? And when exactly was that? That does not seem exactly right. I could be wrong. And I am saying I have no idea because I have not followed it at all. But that just does not sound right. Does not add up to everything else.

Probably before you were born :D. What year was modo released? Brad Peebler stated that Luxology worked on nexus for two years. Find out what year they left NewTek and see if there is a gap of inactivity between the development of nexus and their work on lightwave.

Surrealist.
07-08-2008, 07:02 AM
Ah! So I see. The plot thickens. :D I was just wondering if you had a source that's all. Not a big deal.

PS: and I wish it was before I was born. At least I could say I have at least 50 years to look ahead at lot of great technology rather than the other way around.:hey:

Mike_RB
07-08-2008, 07:45 AM
Yeah, the original idea from the developers and owners of much of the code was that they would consolidate their IP under a new company and rewrite their vision of LW and Newtek would become the 'publisher' of the app. Newtek didn't like that idea and so an agreement was reached possibly after some court action that the original developers and owners of much of the code base were free to take their ideas and go in a new direction, and Newtek was also allowed to take the code in it's current form (LW 7.5-ish) and move forward with it.

I just like that there are 2 companies writing cool software for the LW user. :)

JeffrySG
07-08-2008, 10:47 AM
I just like that there are 2 companies writing cool software for the LW user. :)
Totally agree! I love that we have options. I was/am always confused when people get too 'attached' to a specific piece of software or when there is any type of 'rivalry' between software product. I just want to create, and want different tools to do it. Good competition makes for better software for end users...

frantbk
07-09-2008, 05:44 AM
Yeah, the original idea from the developers and owners of much of the code was that they would consolidate their IP under a new company and rewrite their vision of LW and Newtek would become the 'publisher' of the app. Newtek didn't like that idea and so an agreement was reached possibly after some court action that the original developers and owners of much of the code base were free to take their ideas and go in a new direction, and Newtek was also allowed to take the code in it's current form (LW 7.5-ish) and move forward with it.

I just like that there are 2 companies writing cool software for the LW user. :)
There you go Surrealist, two sources from two different countries. It must be true modo/lightwave, because it is now on the internet :beerchug: :bowdown: :question: Also look at the public domain software OpenFX which Fergson worked on than dropped. You can tell that the coders were lightwavers, but the program does not incorporate lightwave functions at the same level that modo has. Because OpenFX does not contain lgihtwave functions at the same level that modo currently has it can be said that modo was at one point targeted as a lightwave replacement; where as OpenFX was designed as a new path with different objectives using the base structure of lightwave i.e., the modeling section and the animation section.

Surrealist.
07-09-2008, 06:58 AM
Do you really think it is all that suspicious? I just had no real idea and it did not seem to fit. I am sure if it is true it is pretty common knowledge. Nothing to be concerned about, really.

If they were developing it for LightWave though, I think they were developing it in a way that is completely in concert with what they have been always saying about Modo. An entirely new approach. And it seems as if they have implemented it pretty well. If that was to be the new LightWave then, cool. That would have been nice. Too bad, because Modo can't work for me and I have to use LightWave now. Maybe I will be presently surprised with the future of LW. I hope so, now that Foundation is no longer because currently I have no other options financially. That could change, but that is a big if.

And cheers for the info. Kind of interesting in any case.

Lightwolf
07-09-2008, 07:15 AM
Also look at the public domain software OpenFX which Fergson worked on than dropped.
Dr. Stuart Ferguson is a different guy: http://www.ee.qub.ac.uk/graphics/

Cheers,
Mike

frantbk
07-09-2008, 04:48 PM
Dr. Stuart Ferguson is a different guy: http://www.ee.qub.ac.uk/graphics/

Cheers,
Mike

I'm not sure I see your point except that I misspelled Ferguson's name :foreheads. If you look through the website Dr. Stuart Ferguson is mentioned a lot.

frantbk
07-09-2008, 04:55 PM
Do you really think it is all that suspicious? I just had no real idea and it did not seem to fit. I am sure if it is true it is pretty common knowledge. Nothing to be concerned about, really.

If they were developing it for LightWave though, I think they were developing it in a way that is completely in concert with what they have been always saying about Modo. An entirely new approach. And it seems as if they have implemented it pretty well. If that was to be the new LightWave then, cool. That would have been nice. Too bad, because Modo can't work for me and I have to use LightWave now. Maybe I will be presently surprised with the future of LW. I hope so, now that Foundation is no longer because currently I have no other options financially. That could change, but that is a big if.

And cheers for the info. Kind of interesting in any case.

I not sure where you get this suspicious stuff :confused:. If you want suspicious talk, talk to the Mac modo users about the Apple connection to Luxology; that is talked about but has not been confirmed by Luxology :question:.

Lightwolf
07-09-2008, 05:12 PM
I'm not sure I see your point except that I misspelled Ferguson's name :foreheads. If you look through the website Dr. Stuart Ferguson is mentioned a lot.
Yes, but the professor in the UK is not the coder in California - and thus no relation to LW or modo.

Cheers,
Mike

Intuition
07-09-2008, 05:16 PM
Yes, but the professor in the UK is not the coder in California - and this no relation to LW or modo.

Cheers,
Mike

Yes, emphasis must be made, its against a vfx commandment.

"Thou shalt not diss Hastings or Ferguson or even imply it!"

;) :D

jin choung
07-09-2008, 05:43 PM
I'm not sure I see your point except that I misspelled Ferguson's name :foreheads. If you look through the website Dr. Stuart Ferguson is mentioned a lot.

uhh... just to be super clear - it's NOT THE SAME GUY.

i made the same mistake when i first discovered that free app... that guy is not the lw guy.

jin

Mike_RB
07-09-2008, 06:00 PM
uhh... just to be super clear - it's NOT THE SAME GUY.

i made the same mistake when i first discovered that free app... that guy is not the lw guy.

jin

Well, modo guy now if you are being accurate. :)

frantbk
07-09-2008, 07:43 PM
I see what you are saying, but he is a disciple of Ferguson :ohmy:. Also OpenFX has a strong layout like that of Lightwave. Then again Linux Creator moon has a strong Softimage like layout from its designer. Anyway I see what you are saying. :foreheads

stib
07-09-2008, 07:50 PM
He's also not the Guitarist (http://www.stuartferguson.net/index.php?page=cds), the biochemist (http://www.bioch.ox.ac.uk/aspsite/research/brochure/Ferguson/), VP of some oil company (http://www.forbes.com/finance/mktguideapps/personinfo/FromMktGuideIdPersonTearsheet.jhtml?passedMktGuide Id=1024020), mormon archaeologist (http://www.lds-mormon.com/quest.shtml), director of an Australian university department (http://stuartferguson.cgpublisher.com/biography.html), or actor (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0272619/).

Or is he.. has anyone ever seen these people in the same room? Perhaps we should be asking questions..

jin choung
07-10-2008, 02:10 AM
lol

jin

JBT27
07-10-2008, 04:39 AM
Yeah... and finaly LW is progressing somewhere... :)

Yes.....a fact that seems to get lost in all these discussions.....quite where it's heading is up for debate as we all know, but nevertheless, moving forward.

Julian.

Surrealist.
07-10-2008, 06:40 AM
Yeah, they have no choice but to move forward. It is a long haul no matter which direction that they go. I think the overall plan was to appease the larger high profile client base that they already have while still keeping the rest of the software intact and working. That means fist making improvements to the render engine. That is what they have done. A lot of the high profile shops - that is places making feature films - are not using LW for character animation. That is a given for the most part. It would have been highly unrealistic to try and fix that first. I think that they had to do what they have done to keep these places using LightWave as a render package and somehow keep the rest of the client base if they could, and well, they have lost a quite a bit of people with failing to update modeler and CA tools. But that has to change at some point and I am sure it is next. These are just tough transition times is all. If you step back and look at the larger picture it does make sense. Thats what it looks like to me now. But it is just an opinion. I don't know 100% what the actual thinking is.

frantbk
07-10-2008, 07:29 AM
I think Surrealist is right in what he is saying, the real question is, is time on Newtek's side? NewTek may be able to pull it all together, but time could run out on NewTek and lightwave. The reason I say this is because many people are posting angst over the new interface that is suppose to come with version 10. I think people are tired of the wait. I think people want a new lightwave to work with.

cresshead
07-10-2008, 08:34 AM
well if they can't wait there's a bunch of apps to go n try their demo's in the meantime.

i'm looking forward to lw10...and it needs to be intergrated fully.

AbnRanger
07-10-2008, 09:32 AM
well if they can't wait there's a bunch of apps to go n try their demo's in the meantime.

i'm looking forward to lw10...and it needs to be intergrated fully.The slowest mesh-editing speed in the biz and lack of integration between modeling and animation are the two show stoppers, IMHO.
Long time LW shops can easily make do with Messiah on the CA front (still very impressive kit, now with hair/fur, plus it has instances...)...especially since it has a live connection to layout, not a matter of import/export.

I still think that adding Fprime, either by complete integration, or by bundling it with each new license, would help Newtek score some "oooh-shiny" points of it's own while this re-write is still in progress.

Or perhaps testing the market a bit, by selling LW as normal, but also offering a bundle packaging LWCAD, FPrime, HD Instance, 3D Coat, and Messiah for something like $1700-$2200USD. This way, for those that are considering LW can get a sweet discount on all those key plugins as a means to keep the interest level up.

omeone
07-10-2008, 03:55 PM
Isn't SolidWorks a leader in it's field? (I'm not too knowledgable about the parametric modeling biz).


The leader could be Synchronous Technology (http://www.plm.automation.siemens.com/en_us/campaigns/breakthrough/index.shtml) from Siemens PLM. SW is about third / fourth at the moment if you combine user base & technology. It's really hard to tell because these companies stream out such mangled figures in their press releases.

frantbk
07-11-2008, 08:06 AM
well if they can't wait there's a bunch of apps to go n try their demo's in the meantime.

i'm looking forward to lw10...and it needs to be intergrated fully.


I'm not sure I understand the logic here? Why would I want to spend my time with a bunch of demo applications? The point of buying 3D software is to product something you want done. I think the people that are posting their angst about a lack of movement towards lw10 are telling Newtek that they are tired of wasting their time dealing with version 9, and the fact that version 9 has no future. That is if Newtek is changing the GUI of version 10 and some of the coding.

Except to make NT money, what is the point of dealing with version 9.x? If version 10 is the integration of modeler/layout into a single unit. Lets get to it and start dealing with the problems of that new environment and the tool's interaction problems within that environment and the bugs that will be generated because of that environment.

Surrealist.
07-11-2008, 08:41 AM
Well, first of all, people using LW9 are making money. Not just Newtek. I used to have this view that, well they should have trashed the old code and started fresh, started LW new and supported 7. whatever only up to a certain point.

Problem with that philosophy is that it is just that, a philosophy that maybe works good on paper on in a school far away from anything real. It does not fit into the fiscal reality of running a company and turning a profit while you also figure out a way to rejuvenate what you have. The 8x cycle brought many good things and the 9x many more.

But it does seem frustrating to us and yes, they have lost some people. If you want to call that lost since most of the people turning to other apps still use LW. And it is not like they are all turning to full versions of Maya and XSI. Some yes, but only those who would be in a position to use those anyway. And LightWave would have to be a pretty f'n rockin' package for under a grand to turn those people away from using higher end apps that give them what the need now. That in itself is a little unrealistic to expect.

Modo is not something you can turn to and say. "OK this replaces LW." In fact there is really nothing you can say that about right now - commercially for the price - considering what you get with LW. Assuming of course you use LW for what it can give as a full package. If you only use it for a modeler then yes, there are plenty of apps you can turn to. But many people use it as a rendering package in conjunction with other apps. And even for big shops the money and time saved with using LW is a big factor. NT was smart not to loose these people and improve the render package.

The way it stands now, LW works for some people as a full app. For others it works as part of a pipeline that includes other things.

And finally, they are rewriting the code. That is what is happening now. Has been happening for a while. I would say that NT is sitting in a real good position now. For the price they have an application that still fits right into many types of pipelines on many levels of production and in many ways from feature films to small 2-5 man shops turning out TV product.

This position allows them to work on the product and improve it while keeping the lights on. For a relatively small company that is not backed by a mega giant corporation, I'd say that's pretty good.

cresshead
07-11-2008, 08:58 AM
I'm not sure I understand the logic here? Why would I want to spend my time with a bunch of demo applications? The point of buying 3D software is to product something you want done. I think the people that are posting their angst about a lack of movement towards lw10 are telling Newtek that they are tired of wasting their time dealing with version 9, and the fact that version 9 has no future. That is if Newtek is changing the GUI of version 10 and some of the coding.

Except to make NT money, what is the point of dealing with version 9.x? If version 10 is the integration of modeler/layout into a single unit. Lets get to it and start dealing with the problems of that new environment and the tool's interaction problems within that environment and the bugs that will be generated because of that environment.

pretty simple logic really

if some are wanting certain features 'now' that lightwave does not have currently then go and try the demo's of apps that 'do' so you can evaluate if their 'features' are actually usable..if so..go buy the app.

AbnRanger
07-11-2008, 09:01 AM
I'm not sure I understand the logic here? Why would I want to spend my time with a bunch of demo applications? The point of buying 3D software is to product something you want done. I think the people that are posting their angst about a lack of movement towards lw10 are telling Newtek that they are tired of wasting their time dealing with version 9, and the fact that version 9 has no future. That is if Newtek is changing the GUI of version 10 and some of the coding.

Except to make NT money, what is the point of dealing with version 9.x? If version 10 is the integration of modeler/layout into a single unit. Lets get to it and start dealing with the problems of that new environment and the tool's interaction problems within that environment and the bugs that will be generated because of that environment.Because they want 9.5 to have "its day in the sun," ignoring the fact that it's being "eclipsed" (pun intended) by its competitors.
Especially with XSI 7 just being announced...making 9.5 look like it's sitting still, development-wise. Three Siggraphs in a row, stuck on LW 9, and they want to focus on the accomplishment between 9.3 and 9.5?

The sooner they scrap the dual program paradigm, the better...for them and their userbase. That configuration has been an albatross around their proverbial neck.

JensD
07-11-2008, 09:47 AM
Because they want 9.5 to have "its day in the sun," ignoring the fact that it's being "eclipsed" (pun intended) by its competitors.
Especially with XSI 7 just being announced...making 9.5 look like it's sitting still, development-wise. Three Siggraphs in a row, stuck on LW 9, and they want to focus on the accomplishment between 9.3 and 9.5?

The sooner they scrap the dual program paradigm, the better...for them and their userbase. That configuration has been an albatross around their proverbial neck.

I think Softimage had some very dark times for years (rewrite).
Now they are back and made some clever marketing decisions to
gain a solid userbase (Foundation).

Yes, they have a very good product, which is now sold for its real price ( $2995 ).

LW is going through a similar phase, is still very usable and costs $895 now.
The achievement they have made parallel to rewriting old code are not that bad i think.

regards

Jens

frantbk
07-11-2008, 05:09 PM
The sooner they scrap the dual program paradigm, the better...for them and their userbase. That configuration has been an albatross around their proverbial neck.

If NewTek scraps the dual program in version 10 it had better be rock solid in function. NewTek could take the modeler and turn it into an product all on its own seems reasonable. If the modeler had the ability to use rendition it could be a seller for print people not wanting all of Lightwave's functionality.

Mike_RB
07-11-2008, 05:13 PM
If NewTek scraps the dual program in version 10 it had better be rock solid in function. NewTek could take the modeler and turn it into an product all on its own seems reasonable. If the modeler had the ability to use rendition it could be a seller for print people not wanting all of Lightwave's functionality.

You really think modeller on its own would be a viable product? Modeller is one of the weakest areas of LW at this point.

frantbk
07-12-2008, 10:21 AM
You really think modeller on its own would be a viable product? Modeller is one of the weakest areas of LW at this point.

If that is the case than up is the only place for lightwave's modeler to go. Think in terms of a cluster and modeler is one cluster in a larger group of clusters. If you think of modeler as a single program than you'll conclude that is will fail. a re-worked modeler that is well thought out and is targeted as an addition to a suite of programs is more likely to succeed than just another modeling program.

If NewTek targets photoshop, Vue, Zbursh, bodypaint, Rendition, Maxwell and many composting programs as the whole cluster that modeler becomes one cluster attached to, than there is a broad base of different markets modeler can be pipelined into.

cresshead
07-12-2008, 11:59 AM
lightwave needs to be 1 app...
not 3...
not watered down
not split up even further
not pandering to old school ''i like lw5.6'' [1998] style split programs

lightwave needs to be 1 app with a new clean u.i. and one that doesn't look like a quick and dirty pull around of lw8.0 weith just u.i colours changed.


all ther under the hood stuff doesn't really seem to have gotten over the restictions of the 2 apps and the hub...

actually they could do worse than go the xsi route....

introduce lightwave 10 the re write and bundle along lightwaev 9.5 until all of the functions in lightwave 10 are finished and running well.

that would work for me.

Titus
07-12-2008, 12:45 PM
If the modeler had the ability to use rendition it could be a seller for print people not wanting all of Lightwave's functionality.

I swear this was done before by NT, without success.

jin choung
07-12-2008, 03:15 PM
In fact there is really nothing you can say that about right now - commercially for the price - considering what you get with LW.

: )

that is a HIGHLY demarcated little zone you carved out for lw.

that's why i'm arguing that lw is NOT in a good position. that the tenuous slice of market it has between higher priced but technologically superior apps and the forbidding pit of free is getting slimmer by the day.

there's nothing inherently compelling about "commercial" when you can get the same OR BETTER for free.

arguably, blender could easily replace lw in all aspects (and trump in many) except for the renderer and even here, they're not resting on their laurels - http://farsthary.wordpress.com/ .... he seems to be going for not only hypervoxels like volumetrics but the ability to read volumetric datasets ala volumedic....

anyhoo, this is why lw is NOT in a good position now and it gets more perilous as we go.

and as for jay's interview about increasing prices... errr, i dunno what economic reality he lives in but people in mine tend not to buy things sight unseen.

if you're gonna charge more for lw, you better be able to demonstrate that you are CAPABLE of providing something worth paying more for.

jin

frantbk
07-12-2008, 07:20 PM
I swear this was done before by NT, without success.

If you are talking about Inspire, you are talking about a different screwup all together. Inspire was a poorly thought out Lightwave lite version. Inspire was a failure because the people running the project wasn't in touch with the targeted customer base - the hobbyist artist. The people handling that project just were not up the job and had nothing in common with the customer base Inspire was targeted for.

Anyway, I'm not talking about building a Lightwave lite. Any that thinks that would fly is nuts. No I'm talking about building a modeling program that is part of a whole bunch of package of programs.

Titus
07-13-2008, 12:37 AM
Ok, got it. BTW, NT tried to bring back Inspire not so long time ago.

http://www.newtek.com/news/releases/04-25-05b.html

frantbk
07-13-2008, 06:29 AM
Ok, got it. BTW, NT tried to bring back Inspire not so long time ago.

http://www.newtek.com/news/releases/04-25-05b.html

Did they try and bring back Inspire, or did they test the waters to see if people still had a sore spot about Inspire? The press release looked like it was the original re-released.

I doubt NewTek will do much of anything to turn Modeler into a single package. they seem to have their hands full with lightwave.

Surrealist.
07-13-2008, 07:48 AM
: )

that is a HIGHLY demarcated little zone you carved out for lw.

that's why i'm arguing that lw is NOT in a good position. that the tenuous slice of market it has between higher priced but technologically superior apps and the forbidding pit of free is getting slimmer by the day.

there's nothing inherently compelling about "commercial" when you can get the same OR BETTER for free.

arguably, blender could easily replace lw in all aspects (and trump in many) except for the renderer and even here, they're not resting on their laurels - http://farsthary.wordpress.com/ .... he seems to be going for not only hypervoxels like volumetrics but the ability to read volumetric datasets ala volumedic....

anyhoo, this is why lw is NOT in a good position now and it gets more perilous as we go.

and as for jay's interview about increasing prices... errr, i dunno what economic reality he lives in but people in mine tend not to buy things sight unseen.

if you're gonna charge more for lw, you better be able to demonstrate that you are CAPABLE of providing something worth paying more for.

jin

True I did. :)

Interesting about Blender though. I mean it is going to interesting what happens. That is such a good looking app in so many ways. I was very tempted to get through the interface and even took that serious for about a week. :D

But yes it has got to make an impact on the market high and low. I have not been following it lately. What is the projected time frame of a new interface? Do you know?

Titus
07-13-2008, 08:37 AM
Did they try and bring back Inspire, or did they test the waters to see if people still had a sore spot about Inspire? The press release looked like it was the original re-released.


I don't know, really. The press release says "NewTek Previews Innovative New Low-Cost 3D Animation System". While everybody know Inspire isn't new, marketing language tries to say the opposite.


I doubt NewTek will do much of anything to turn Modeler into a single package. they seem to have their hands full with lightwave.

I don't know why they would do that, IMO they need to consolidate their tools instead of make them thiner trying to reach different niches. For me a modeler-rendition combo it's a no-no.

Titus
07-13-2008, 08:49 AM
there's nothing inherently compelling about "commercial" when you can get the same OR BETTER for free.

I'm a Blender user since version 1.8 and nobody gave a dime fot it, but I really doubt Blender is a threat to many commercial products. I don't see any animation studio (at least dedicated to advertising) switching to Blender any time soon. Clients (BBDO, Young & Rubicam, etc) want me, no, they demand me to have the "standard" tools. They don't care if Blender or even LW does the job well but they want me to pay for Maya-XSI, Flame and Avid systems.

Surrealist.
07-13-2008, 11:12 AM
Yes that is true now. I wonder if it will change though, over time.

frantbk
07-13-2008, 06:40 PM
I don't know why they would do that, IMO they need to consolidate their tools instead of make them thiner trying to reach different niches. For me a modeler-rendition combo it's a no-no.

To you yes, but to a photoshop person using rendition the ability to have rendition rendering in the modeling program showing the same output that photoshop will render at could be priceless. You have to look at from the view of the targeted customer. NewTek failed to look through the eyes of the Inspire customer when they released it, and because of that Inspire failed.