PDA

View Full Version : Merge Layout and Modeler?



meshpig
08-10-2008, 03:07 AM
Hi

The Animation Survey

http://www.newtek.com/forums/showthread.php?t=87232

asks at one point whether Layout and Modeler should be merged and also if the file formats should remain as they are.

- I answered no and yes not wanting to be hasty but it isn't really a yes/no question hey...?? OK, so rain s**t on me.

What do you think?

m:dance:










-

Mitja
08-10-2008, 03:32 AM
For me it would be the best to have them integrated, but with a button to switch between modeler and layout without the hub. A sort of "change interface". I hate the hub so very, very much.

cresshead
08-10-2008, 03:50 AM
if lw10 isn't intergrated then lightwave will be left as an 'old school' retro 3d app.

bobakabob
08-10-2008, 05:36 AM
I'm sure Newtek stated a while back that a merger was on the cards with the option of a standalone Modeler. I really hope that's the direction they're moving. Layout really needs modelling tools and vertex manipulation. It seems surprising Newtek are asking the question...

pooby
08-10-2008, 05:44 AM
asks at one point whether Layout and Modeler should be merged and also if the file formats should remain as they are.

- I answered no and yes not wanting to be hasty but it isn't really a yes/no question hey...?? OK, so rain s**t on me.


you're right. It should be just a yes for the first and 'we don't know what you have planned so why ask us?' for the second

cresshead
08-10-2008, 06:00 AM
so looks like lw10 hasn't even been pinned to a drawing board yet..

meshpig
08-10-2008, 06:40 AM
you're right. It should be just a yes for the first and 'we don't know what you have planned so why ask us?' for the second

Yeah, but if it's all just a rush for lw 10?

I can imagine L&M working like the distinct panes in modo and .lws becoming something like .lxo but of course I'm just a layman.

I mean I like the concept of being able to simultaneously work in modeler and layout a bit like how you have realtime renders in modo with a scene, render and model view.

So, if they're just merged plain and simple that's gone.

Conversely, it will be interesting to see how Luxology incorporate CA.

m

JBT27
08-10-2008, 06:40 AM
It shouldn't even be up for debate anymore - much of the modern workflow demands integration.

A standalone uncluttered Modeler as well would be nice, whether that's via a switching interface in the integrated app or still a physically separate one.

Jay's inferences of the pricing policy changing do suggest radical changes coming.....unsustainable without more funding.....

Julian.

dballesg
08-10-2008, 06:46 AM
It's not only that, integrating both, will allow to the dev team to make things like the vertex paint of a mesh on the screen much easier, and avoid duplication of code if they want to do an animated version of the Bend Tool for example.

So I vote for integration all the way! :)

David

meshpig
08-10-2008, 06:50 AM
If LightWave isn't an integrated application in LW10, I will most likely pass as I find the current workflow to be a pain. The limitations imposed by a split applications are simply too numerous. I can't even be bothered to list them, as they should be quite obvious. And everybody just loves the Hub!

The end of the seperate application setup is long overdue.

Ah, thanks hr banana it now seems to be raining s**t:agree:

meshpig
08-10-2008, 07:40 AM
I'm curious why you single out my opinion when others say basically the same? Does my personal opinion somehow equate raining s**t on you?

No, not at all. On the contrary, I'm interested in your opinion just that I began the thread with the hope it would be contentious enough to help me get my head around it because I found the question too simplistic.

Perhaps it's my brusque turn of phrase? No offense intended, but you can't help but be conversational here because your head is glued to the computer and it's all quite intriguing.

m:)

meshpig
08-10-2008, 07:58 AM
Neverko,

... Top of the thread: words were "... rain sh*t on me" as in I want to hear the clincher.

m

cresshead
08-10-2008, 08:55 AM
i think for alot of people it's time to move on...and i don't mean dump lightwave and go buy maya!

i mean lightwave needs a 'next step'...not a set of tweeks but a total overhaul in how you work with lightwave...having 1 app would be that next step's starting point and all the good tings that will allow for in lw10 for animated modeling and rigging/deformation etc.

until then we're getting 9.5 with a renderer/lighting update and some basic fur/hair

Lewis
08-10-2008, 09:14 AM
This question has been asked for many times in the past (it started several years ago) and each time more and more people is FOR integration. At first there was only about 30% for integration and 70 for Separate but nowdays i think its closer to 80% Integration to 20% Separate and NT did mention their plan is to integrate but alow separate modeling if anyone wants it :).

I'm 100% for integration but with separate modeling as option (it can be in same interface (i don't care how)) but i just don't want animation buttons while i model :)).

cresshead
08-10-2008, 09:55 AM
lightwave is probably the ONLY full app that's split thesedays...now there's bucking the trend by not intergrating like eveyone else laready have intergration [maya, max, xsi, cindema, houdini] and cutting your nose off to spite your face and so being seen as lacking in future development options for current and new users...


now lightwave can obviously do great things 'as is' but looking toward the app a year or so down the road there's lots of things that are just not doable right now and will not be fixed for a furutre split app...things have to change

either
1. intergrate...
2. stagnate
3. inovate

personally i'm hoping newtek do 1 and 3!

kopperdrake
08-10-2008, 10:00 AM
I voted 'merge' them. Just because they're merged code-wise, doesn't mean it has to feel as though everything happens in one window. I'm happy as they are to be honest, but if it helps others and their workflows and brings overall benefits then I say merge 'em :P

cresshead
08-10-2008, 10:31 AM
off topic i know, but loved the cape verde animation on your blog

http://www.albino-igil.com/blog/

kopperdrake
08-10-2008, 10:46 AM
Oh ta dude :) Tried to steer them from the 'fly-through' approach but they wouldn't be convinced!

Andyjaggy
08-10-2008, 10:48 AM
Integrate. Used to be against it but I've seen the light, I don't see any reason to not have them in the same app now.

3DGFXStudios
08-10-2008, 11:08 AM
I say: Integrate! .... (I'm using lightwave since version 5.4 on the amiga) Kill you're darling...u know!

G M D THREE
08-10-2008, 11:26 AM
Just to throw my 5¢ worth of S**T in here with a roll of toilet paper.

There is something fundamentally essential to me about having Layout and Modeler separated.
For one it's a habit: Having used LW for 10 years, it is hard for me to imagine the opposite.
In the production pipeline I always liked that things went their ways. A model B texture C animate light and render.

Regardless what most people here say I think it would be a really bad move by NewTek to do a merger with a new file format.
It will alienate its existing user base just to mimic the competition. Trust me, the devil you know is better than the one you don't.

Having things apart could be good if done well; take a look, for example, at Adobe: They have a big set of products that are great stand alone but work very well together.
I don't think that there is a need to merge Illustrator, Photoshop and After Effects in one uber app!

Having apps being individuals allows for a more in-depth development of each without risking that they become overloaded.
Did you ever wonder why LW has no start-up screen? I will tell you why, cause it opens too fast to have time for it to be on!
Opening maya feels like the whole world is passing by.

There will be always people asking for things to be in the same app, yeah, can we have an mp3 player and e-mail in LW bla bla bla.

So much for the S**T, now to the toilet paper.

There are some thing that are impossible in LW due to Layout and Modeler being stand alone.
On my personal S**T list:

1. Modeling from the Camera view. This is very essential for any photogrammetry techniques.
2. Texturing and assigning surfaces in the actual light situation of the scene and doing test renders. As there is no way in Layout to assign surfaces or do UVs
3. Updating geometry in relation to a scene or model in your scene setup and its conditions.

Suggested realistic solutions:
1. Having a Camera view in Modeler. Being able to save or sync camera between Modeler and Layout. Even an animated Camera and a way to scrub through it.
2. Being able to select polys and assign a surface and have a UV tool in Layout would do.
3. In most cases being even able to deform an Object by moving polys or points would save the day. How about a deformation tool in Layout that lets you save to an endomorph or the opposite being able to save an animation maybe with an mdd and load that in Layout, with a time scrub option.
Or having a scene view in Modeler, where only the selected object is editable and the rest are ghosts. Using something like instancing to display reference geometry.

I don't have any clue what a coding challenge this really is; I am just thinking out loud.

Even the hub is very dysfunctional. I think LW could profit by a good sidekick app. Something like 3d browsing and content manager that lets you view objects and animated scenes. View scene and model data in it, display a tree diagram of the assets in a scene and object. See objects, lights, cameras, image count, used plugins, version and so on. Being able to play rendered frame sequences in a folder through it. The ability to apply image filters on rendered files through it! Batch process scenes, objects and images with it.

I would kill for a tool that lets me batch swap 500+ images used in a scene and containing objects, from JPG to TIF and maintain the image path without even opening a scene!

All the day dreaming aside, NewTek should take advantage of Modeler and Layout being separate and start capitalizing on it by selling it as a stand-alone option.
A Rendition Modeler Bundle would be a great combo too. Of course if they get rendition to open LW still scenes, it would kick even more a s s.
Having the option for a post house to get more modeling seats at a lower price and being able to upgrade to a full set would be very attractive.


Thanx for reading your way through.

Peace. ///

cresshead
08-10-2008, 11:44 AM
well having a camera in modeler and other layout stuff ported to modeler and bits of modeler ported to layout just sounds really redundant and just doubles the overhead and development and mess with plugins...and they still don't talk to one another like a single app would be aware of stuff in it's own environment of a single unified app.

i'd go for something more like the tab or mode way that maya and xsi offer your u.i. buttons for specific modes in 1 single app...

so...
1 app with poly tools tab, animation tab, particles tab, lighting tab, uv tab, rigging tab, sculpting tab, painting tab but ALL STILL in 1 single app.

or a shelf system like maya....

theo
08-10-2008, 12:13 PM
so...
1 app with poly tools tab, animation tab, particles tab, lighting tab, uv tab, rigging tab, sculpting tab, painting tab but ALL STILL in 1 single app.

or a shelf system like maya....

This proposes one of the more mystical issues of converting the existing model/layout configuration into a single app.

What the he!! does integration mean, exactly? And this has nothing to do with the definition of integration as defined by Webster.

I am for integration- but how to translate the existing buttload of menus and tools from both LW apps into a single environment in a cohesive, functional and efficient way is surely going to require a fairly magnificent set of neurons.

I don't see overly simplistic (not to be rude here cresshead) ruminations as an ideal conduit to explain what I perceive as a fairly epic but labrynthian transition.

3DGFXStudios
08-10-2008, 12:19 PM
tab mode ok. maya mode not ok.

cresshead
08-10-2008, 12:34 PM
This proposes one of the more mystical issues of converting the existing model/layout configuration into a single app.

What the he!! does integration mean, exactly? And this has nothing to do with the definition of integration as defined by Webster.

I am for integration- but how to translate the existing buttload of menus and tools from both LW apps into a single environment in a cohesive, functional and efficient way is surely going to require a fairly magnificent set of neurons.

I don't see overly simplistic (not to be rude here cresshead) ruminations as an ideal conduit to explain what I perceive as a fairly epic but labrynthian transition.

hey none taken!:thumbsup:

my notes were not meant to be a blueprint or construction manual but just to say that such a task is not insurmountable as all the other apps have managed to do it with various ways to split up the u.i. be they tabs like 3dsmax 1 to 4, modes like that of xsi, modules like that of maya or work rooms like that of carrara [yuk on carrara....] and the shelf system in maya as well...

i think many tools will be thrown away from modeler as they're slight copies of each other and will have a new single final tool for say move rather than the 5 to 6 versions of the move tool we currently have as an example in modeler.

i really hope newtek haven't just been tweeking 9.x and have yet to even make a start on lw10's need to intergrate to a single app....last we heard was that adding modeling tools into layout was a bit more work to do so wouldn't be in the 9.x updates..i'm hoping they didn't just abandon it as ''too hard'' to do for now.

Ivan D. Young
08-10-2008, 12:48 PM
I have an uneasy feeling about this whole thing. We are getting asked agian about Integration? this is just ridiculous, I think there is resistance at Newtek itself to integration. Why would they keep asking? This has been brought up several times in the last year. The Poll that they put up asked whether they were responsive, I would say the DEV Team was and Chuck Baker and Proton for training, but there have been several threads about this and I guess some at Newtek did not listen those threads.

hey maybe I am being too harsh, I could be wrong. But the Usual suspects, I know will come out of the wood work for this fight, we all have over the last couple of years. All of those very contentious fights, and now they are curious about how we feel?
Really?

If I am out of line, I will keep quiet!

adamredwoods
08-10-2008, 01:16 PM
If merging, I'm sure Layout will absorb Modeler, and then the intuitiveness of Lightwave will go out the window.

I find that the "3d-swim" in Modeler far exceeds usefulness than in Layout. In other words, when modeling a hand in Modeler, you can focus and revolve around it quite intuitively-- even though the hand is not at the origin. Not so easy in Layout. In layout, the "3d-swim" also depends on the grid size, which throws everything off. Also, moving items depends on grid size, not on how close or far your viewport is.

Merging the apps? Sure, but it will be a trial of User Interface strategy that I do not feel NewTek has the skillset just yet. Programmers usually don't create the finest UI. Copying another app (Maya? XSI? Puh-lease!) can lead to a mass-exodus.

Get someone who is an expert at UI design and do it right the first time.

cresshead
08-10-2008, 01:21 PM
Get someone who is an expert at UI design and do it right the first time.

Matt?....you busy?:D:thumbsup:

shrox
08-10-2008, 01:34 PM
...Layout really needs...vertex manipulation...

YES! The one thing 3DMax has over Lightwave in my opinion. Max's biped is nice, but simple plugin to make a skelegon biped-like rig in modeller shouldn't be too hard for someone to write.

JBT27
08-10-2008, 02:03 PM
It is curious NT are asking again, as others have said, when they must be plainly aware of the massive shortcomings of the current system.

But before integration, Modeler needs a complete consolidation - get rid of all the duplicate ways of doing things, and build all possible transform options into a single tool, or three at the most. Sort that out. Then perhaps start by adding the essentials to Layout - the stuff we cannot do now, the weightmap painting, vertex selection, and so on.....I don't know, I have no idea what's involved or even if such piecemeal approaches are feasible.

My big worry is a sledgehammer that dumps all of Modeler into Layout.....separate modelling is a very good thing, and as G M D Three says, it's a pro pipeline approach - you don't need all that extra clutter while you are creating the mesh. I appreciate that's a bit naive and doesn't cover all bases, but a consolidated Modeler has to be a key part of the 10.x dev.

Unless LW 10.x is underway already in a big way, I think we're looking at alot more than a year for the next major incarnation.

Julian.

Andyjaggy
08-10-2008, 02:21 PM
Why does everyone assume that having modeler inside of Layout will automatically and without fail make modeling and layout tools a big gooey mess? If done right modeling can still be just as separate a task as it is now.

JohnMarchant
08-10-2008, 02:57 PM
Should have similar to Maya with a drop down to change between modeler and layout

Andrewstopheles
08-10-2008, 03:21 PM
I think the benefits outweigh the risks. I need to be able to manipulate vertices in layout and animate them individually without using morphmixer, so that the animation plays well with others. MDD has not solved this problem for me - when I export to VRML the animation is lost. That is my problem, and integration would likely lead to this being fixed, although not soon enough!

wp_capozzi
08-10-2008, 03:42 PM
In general I'm for integration, if it opens up possibilities of animated modeling, histories, more functionality, and all the other good things listed before.

I would like to see Modeler stripped down and rewritten as a clean and concise set of our favorite tools, maybe as modules or plugins that fit both Layout and Modeler. I can imagine clicking a tab to see a full featured Modeler tools interface in Layout.

What would it be like if Modeler were rewritten as nothing but a framework that uses new model modules, keeping it a separate app. Then also having those same newly written model modules be the integrated Modeler portion of Layout. So you could have both if you choose, a Layout-Modeler integrated app, and a separate familiar Modeler based on a shared set of tools.

I favor the idea of integration. I reserve the right to change my mind.
-Bill C.

prospector
08-10-2008, 03:52 PM
They are integrated for good reason.
Maby it's because their users can't do 2 things at once? Or the programmers aren't smart enough to program 2 things at once?

shrox
08-10-2008, 05:01 PM
The main thing I don't like about, oh say 3DMax, there are so many branching off history steps it becomes cumbersome. I don't like it. If LW changed so much I didn't like it, I would stay with my last version. I use Maya as well, and that would probably be my new default program. Eventaully I would use it alone, as why use two sets of tools for the same end?

Whatever the right stuff is, Lightwave has it for me.

kopperdrake
08-10-2008, 05:06 PM
I may be wrong but asides from our own threads on this forum, this is the *first* time anything official has been asked by NewTek on what *we* would like regarding integration. I see this as an important and loaded question - it says to me that inside NT they are getting ready to bite the bullet if we so choose - maybe even for the LW10.

Just because it's in the forums and some of the NT guys read them, doesn't mean it gets distributed through official channels internally. This is a question direct from them, and I would hope that whatever we answer gets filtered down internally. A programmer in front of his screen reading the forum and saying 'ooh, they really think we should integrate' to his manager is a lot weaker than the man at the top saying to all the managers 'integrate'.

G M D THREE
08-10-2008, 07:23 PM
Hey If somebody from NewTek told me that in about 6 moths of hard coding they can merge Layout and Modeler into one perfectly working app, that seamlessly combines both, is fast and solid as hell. I would say: hey go for it and rock my world.

Now who here still believes in Santa Claus?

Yes we point out modo and xsi but remember they have been written from scratch relatively recently compared to old school LW.
Modo started dev in 2002 from what I remember and its still not at full blast.
Thats 6 years guys!

Anyone here wants to wait 6+ years for NewTek to write LW reborn. And stick whit what they got?

I have to make a leaving with it every day. So my approach is don't try to fix things that are not broken!


///

rakker16mm
08-10-2008, 07:43 PM
So my approach is don't try to fix things that are not broken!


///

I love LW, but I think there are a few things here and there in LW actually could be described as being broken....

Dexter2999
08-10-2008, 08:07 PM
I am by no means an advanced user. I have been saying for a couple of years that an option to switch the interface between modelling and layout would be necessary if you want to merge the two. Some of us don't really care to reinvent the wheel. I don't have any problems at all...until the HUB breaks. The F12 works they way it should maybe 75% of the time for me.

I just don't understand the "advantages" that many people are asking for in a merged application.

MachineClaw
08-10-2008, 08:31 PM
I voted to keep them seperate.

Newtek needs to rewrite modeler core, add new stuff and bring it up to date then integration can be done.

3D starts with modeling. Lightwave used to be top of the game in modeling, now they have gone near the bottom of the modeling game.

Lightwave is all about the end of the 3D process, not the start or the integration of start and end.

Newtek needs to update and finish the lightwave documentation too, too many features and new features with no help in the way of documentation.

I don't do animation. Don't care to, don't want to. That seems to be where lightwave is heading going off into post production and layout, nothing about the modeling and still graphic renders. Which is fine.

NewTek will do what they do regardless. Me I'm jumping ship and going with Luxology Modo as soon as I can afford it, unless there is a change in modeling and documentation support before lightwave v.10. I keep hearing others say similar things, in reviews in magazines, online forums and here.

I haven't seen any marketting for lightwave in a long time in magazines etc in a long long time. Yet other applications are all over and out there.

shrox
08-10-2008, 08:33 PM
Vertex manipulation as an animation capability, whatever incarnation.

prospector
08-11-2008, 12:18 AM
NewTek told me that in about 6 moths of hard coding they can merge Layout and Modeler into one perfectly working app, that seamlessly combines both, is fast and solid as hell.
And pigs will fly out everyones butt
No-one remember 6?
5.6 was a totally rock solid LW...only would crash if you hit CPU with hammer and water

Then came 6

Been tryin to get it right ever since.

prospector
08-11-2008, 12:30 AM
If integration comes it will be no sooner than 11 and the whining and complaining starts, this won't work like XYZ program, we need this like RST proggy or LW is dead.
A solid working ver will probably be LW14, and there will STILL be whiners because it will somehow be different than QBR program.
It never ends

Just fix the Hub so nothing is loaded twice, speed dynamics calculations 100 fold, and just get point manipulation in Layout (tho it already has it), and do animatable weightmaps for perfect animation deformation.
What is so hard about that?
no need to re-invent LW.

Mat
08-11-2008, 12:44 AM
The ability to swap out models in a scene as they are updated rules. and still having a dedicated modeler is a must.

Having used max for a year at the AIE, the ability swap out older models versions in the rig was laking, though I never tryed it I was told that it was a pain an not very stable.

It would be great to get some point monipulators in so you can fix sertain poses that would be more time consuming other wise.

Stooch
08-11-2008, 01:41 AM
i voted that i have no opinion.

why? because i dont consider modeler to be competitive any more and do not want to use it in any of my work. id rather fire up modo or model in maya. I only care about lws rendering abilities at this pointl. To me volumetrics are crucial, compositing and render layer output and better dynamics - particles, hard and soft. Hair is key but it must be very well supported by dynamics. face it kids, modeler is a dead animal. its cluttered, ancient and lacks history. its not competitive and if integrating the current crap into layout means a long delay then hell no! work on modeling tools in layout and get it right NEXT time. if a developer at newtek adds a redundant button in the interface, please fire him promptly and let that be an example.

the only thing thats worth preserving and ehancing in LW is its rendering features. focus on the strenghts please.

rakker16mm
08-11-2008, 01:55 AM
the only thing thats worth preserving and ehancing in LW is its rendering features. focus on the strenghts please.

Stooch,

If I owned Modo and Maya I might feel the same way :) but until I do, I would much rather NewTek focus on fixing the weakest areas in LightWave.

geo_n
08-11-2008, 01:56 AM
I'm 100% for integration but with separate modeling as option (it can be in same interface (i don't care how)) but i just don't want animation buttons while i model :)).

:thumbsup: agreed

cresshead
08-11-2008, 02:03 AM
if lw stays seperated for version 10 i really can't see how newtek can solve their character rigging, bones, deformation and animation issues that drag lightwave down into the 'back of the bus' app..

rendering sure...pretty darn good
lighting..sure nice to have ies etc..
hypervoxels...nice to have in the box even thogh they really need updating a bit

modeling...okay but no camera, lighting, trasform gizmos's...:bangwall:
setting up deformations...no ffd lattices in 2008???...oh dear!:tsktsk:

bloated modeler toolset with repeats of versions all over the place just feels messy...

also all tools are dropped after use...no stack..no history...just go make it again...stupid!

eveything you save is polys...you can't have a spline line with an extrude and bevel to go back to later and update the spline which auto updates [propergates thru] up the modeling history as there is NO history...
you have to make it all again...yawn!!! not good enough in 2008

now i'm just putting down the things that are bad in lw..there are some cool things too:thumbsup:

now if lightwave had the animation tools/workflow from messiah studio and silo's modeler plus 3dcoat all rolled into lightwave layout we'd have a good starting point for lightwave 10.


actually stooch may have something...
lightwave should spin off their renderer as stand alone with connections to maya, xsi and 3dsmax...that would at least see newtek through the next few years sales wise as they go off and mak a next gen 3d app.

meshpig
08-11-2008, 02:38 AM
I guess I misunderstood your wording then. Apologies :)


No problem... thanks anyway:)

m:

kopperdrake
08-11-2008, 02:42 AM
I disagree Stooch - whilst Modeler may have its limitations I find it does us just fine this end, especially with LWCAD added to the mix. There are probably tools I don't realise I need that are in other packages but we work fast enough as is to remain competitive.

If NewTek wanted to just make the renderer as you suggest then we'd leave for another package that had an all-in-one solution. Great if you can afford to have at least a couple of 3D apps per head but small studios don't have that luxury - LightWave is perfect for small studios.

Personally I'd like to see Modeler updated to include more all-singing all-dancing tools that people tell me Modo et al have, reduce redundant tools, and refine some tools that do act a bit goofy, and if they need to do all that I'd rather they did it within a new Modeler that's integrated into Layout rather than building another external Modeler only to try and shoehorn it into Layout's code at a later date, surely that's part of the problem we have now...workflows are too disparate (never mind the coding issues!). This way the character chappies will be happy, imagine being able to paint weightmaps in Layout where you can see exactly where you want your influences to be in real time?

G M D THREE
08-11-2008, 09:51 AM
I would not trade LW for Maya even if offered free.

There is something that I like about LW, that its power to the people, that its not over marketed and over priced.
That you actually can finish a project in it from beginning to the end, in a feature film quality.

Even the 3D market has gotten very competitive this days, I think that LW is still holding the bar and is one of the main 4 3D apps available and affordable over the counter.

///

Stooch
08-11-2008, 10:38 AM
Stooch,

If I owned Modo and Maya I might feel the same way :) but until I do, I would much rather NewTek focus on fixing the weakest areas in LightWave.

ummm... did you read my first sentence? i said thast why i voted that i have no opinion.

Stooch
08-11-2008, 10:39 AM
I would not trade LW for Maya even if offered free.

That you actually can finish a project in it from beginning to the end, in a feature film quality.

///

please show me a single project that was finsihed entirely in LW and is feature film quality. with all the fixins. cloth, hair, CA

G M D THREE
08-11-2008, 11:59 AM
please show me a single project that was finsihed entirely in LW and is feature film quality. with all the fixins. cloth, hair, CA

How about opening titles of "Panic Room"
Maybe, "BattleStar Galactica"
Perhaps "300"

... where have you been last 10 years? Do you read the news or are you just ignorant.

///

cresshead
08-11-2008, 12:04 PM
i think stooch is refering the characters in films...err jimmy neutron feature film was rendered and modeled in lightave...and animated where there were no characters...they were handled by messiah plugin back then.

rakker16mm
08-11-2008, 12:08 PM
ummm... did you read my first sentence? i said thast why i voted that i have no opinion.

Yes I did, but I was responding to your last sentence. That's why I quoted only the last part. I would probably feel the same way about where NewTek should focus its efforts. That's all.

G M D THREE
08-11-2008, 12:17 PM
If you are referring to movies like: Shrek, ToyStory, Wll-E, Kung-Fu Panda, Beowulf ...

All animated character related feature films are done with tones of proprietary apps, mostly developed within the the studios to handle specific tasks in a pipeline. There is not a single feature film this days that uses only one of the shelf 3D app.


All I sad is feature film quality!

///

adamredwoods
08-11-2008, 12:21 PM
From the other thread:
http://newtek.com/forums/showthread.php?t=87232&page=5


I definitely would have to lose a lot of quick-keys if there was only one app. I know that argument isn't the most rational, but it's a reality for me.

Eric

Could be. Kiss those keyboard shortcuts goodbye.

cresshead
08-11-2008, 12:27 PM
From the other thread:
http://newtek.com/forums/showthread.php?t=87232&page=5



Could be. Kiss those keyboard shortcuts goodbye.

not really...if there's a modeling button...then the keys could re-map when in that mode...with 3dsmax you can save out keymaps for example.

Andyjaggy
08-11-2008, 12:28 PM
Oh my gosh, these are the arguments we have for not combining the apps? Loosing keyboard shortcuts? WTF, Map em to a different key for crying out loud.

Kuzey
08-11-2008, 01:05 PM
My problem with a combined app is that it would become a one project app. I like to have multiple projects open in say Modeler and maybe render something unrelated in Layout at the same time. Yes, I know you PC guys can just instance as many copies of LW as you want, but this isn't a PC only app after all.

If they can work out that problem then I'll be all in.

Also, I don't like the idea of having a menu option somewhere, to hide one work space from the other. I'd rather still have the ability to open two separate windows for modeling or rendering and to be able to load two different projects into each window/space.

That's about enough from me 8/ :D

Kuzey

Ps. There are two threads on the same topic and I say we merge them and merge them now :D

Andyjaggy
08-11-2008, 01:14 PM
You can open multiple instances of apps on a mac. You just have to duplicate the application file. Not the best solution but it works.

Kuzey
08-11-2008, 01:33 PM
Yes...I knew that. If that's the best one can hope for then I say keep them separate :D

Kuzey

Mike_RB
08-11-2008, 01:43 PM
you can have multiple scenes loaded in modo. Like having multiple photoshop documents open at once, copy and paste info between them.

shrox
08-11-2008, 01:44 PM
Yes...I knew that. If that's the best one can hope for then I say keep them separate :D

Kuzey

I concur.

Kuzey
08-11-2008, 02:02 PM
you can have multiple scenes loaded in modo. Like having multiple photoshop documents open at once, copy and paste info between them.

That's interesting and if LW does became one app then that would be the way to go. Funny enough, I was thinking photoshop would be a good example to copy, it's good Modo has done that. Also, the same thing would have to happen with the rendering part of the software......then I'm sold.

Kuzey

Lightwolf
08-11-2008, 02:17 PM
Like having multiple photoshop documents open at once, copy and paste info between them.
However, that's where the similarity ends, as you can't render one of them and continue working on another project (within the same instance of modo that is).

I'd say let NT find a way around OSXs stupid limitation and instead find a way to copy/paste items across using the OS clipboard :)

Cheers,
Mike

adamredwoods
08-11-2008, 03:20 PM
Oh my gosh, these are the arguments we have for not combining the apps? Loosing keyboard shortcuts? WTF, Map em to a different key for crying out loud.

WTF you have limited keys.

Dynamic keyboard mappings is a potential solution, not WTF.
But then the UI better have some way of telling between the different modes, or you will get confused real quick.

rakker16mm
08-11-2008, 04:50 PM
If Layout and Modeler get merged a lot of redundant tools would be eliminated... freeing up many of the key combinations currently split between Modeler and Layout.

PLUS things would generally be less confusing as the keyboard shortcuts would always remain consistent since you would not be switching from app to app.

Lightwolf
08-11-2008, 04:55 PM
But then the UI better have some way of telling between the different modes, or you will get confused real quick.
Do you get confused switching from Modeler to Layout using alt-tab? Or accidentally clicking on Modelers open surface editor while workin in Layout?

Hm, in thinking about it... ctrl-tab to switch between workspaces/layouts would be neat :)

Cheers,
Mike

AbnRanger
08-11-2008, 06:02 PM
My problem with a combined app is that it would become a one project app. I like to have multiple projects open in say Modeler and maybe render something unrelated in Layout at the same time. Yes, I know you PC guys can just instance as many copies of LW as you want, but this isn't a PC only app after all.

If they can work out that problem then I'll be all in.

Also, I don't like the idea of having a menu option somewhere, to hide one work space from the other. I'd rather still have the ability to open two separate windows for modeling or rendering and to be able to load two different projects into each window/space.

That's about enough from me 8/ :D

Kuzey

Ps. There are two threads on the same topic and I say we merge them and merge them now :DYou can have multiple instances of Max open, so what's the problem again with merging? I can't think of a single, tangible benefit of having separate applications. And what's worse, it should have been changed years ago. Instead, we're looking at years to catch up...just in this one aspect. The more people moan about keeping them separate, the longer the app stays in the stone age of CG.

adamredwoods
08-11-2008, 06:16 PM
If Layout and Modeler get merged a lot of redundant tools would be eliminated... freeing up many of the key combinations currently split between Modeler and Layout.

PLUS things would generally be less confusing as the keyboard shortcuts would always remain consistent since you would not be switching from app to app.

I thought about that, too, but the big unknown is that we don't know how NT is going to implement anything.

I'm not for or against merging of the kingdoms, just pointing out that it will change everyone's workflow, some good, some bad, some gains here, some losses there. It really depends HOW it is merged.

Andyjaggy
08-11-2008, 06:26 PM
I would be very inerested to see the poll results on the percentages that are for and against.

Stooch
08-11-2008, 09:11 PM
How about opening titles of "Panic Room"
Maybe, "BattleStar Galactica"
Perhaps "300"

... where have you been last 10 years? Do you read the news or are you just ignorant.

///

hahaha battle star galactica is NOT film quality. they dont have the kind of deadlines to achieve a flim quality level of polish, i could see individual voxels in alot of shots and cylon animation is atrocious. the level of quality is extraordinary for TV. and ill leave it at that.

panic room?? never heard of it. was it all cg? oh yeah now i remeber its a bad live action movie about some lady in a room and guys trying to kill her... is that your best example of LW use???? you have got to be kidding me.

300?? yeah the arrows. big deal.

lol at ignorant comment. I think that you are impressed by crap because you are an amateur.

Stooch
08-11-2008, 09:20 PM
From the other thread:
http://newtek.com/forums/showthread.php?t=87232&page=5



Could be. Kiss those keyboard shortcuts goodbye.

not a big deal. context sensitive shortcuts that work depending on current task have been around for a while. i just want to see powerful interactive and history enabled tools in layout not the old crappy modeling tools we have now. modo is going the old destructive workflow path... i think its a mistake on their part, if lw wants to surpass rather than catch up they need some good, well thought out modeling tools built into layout instead of copied over from modeler. so for me the question should be "should we create a badass modeling core in layout" instead of "integrate modeler in layout"

T-Light
08-11-2008, 10:07 PM
stooch -

modo is going the old destructive workflow path... i think its a mistake on their part, if lw wants to surpass rather than catch up they need some good, well thought out modeling tools built into layout instead of copied over from modeler. so for me the question should be "should we create a badass modeling core in layout" instead of "integrate modeler in layout"
But how would you do it Stooch?
There's no two ways about it, it's a Massive job.
I'm still into modeler in a big way, combining the two would make my job harder, but I admit I'm against the tide.

Integrate all graphics ops, and have a double flow menu ( if that makes sense) in layout. It equals less screen space and less focus.
I Don't know old man, I could live with it, but I wouldn't be happy.

cresshead
08-11-2008, 10:42 PM
sorta off topic but after watching the autodesk live video demo's from siggraph and the recent xsi videos esp the stuff released today... talking about merging modeler andlayout together just seems really like a dumb no brainer that should have been happening the last 3 years or so.

just feels like some people have their head's firmly stuck in the sand.

Stooch
08-11-2008, 11:02 PM
stooch -

But how would you do it Stooch?
There's no two ways about it, it's a Massive job.
I'm still into modeler in a big way, combining the two would make my job harder, but I admit I'm against the tide.

Integrate all graphics ops, and have a double flow menu ( if that makes sense) in layout. It equals less screen space and less focus.
I Don't know old man, I could live with it, but I wouldn't be happy.

you can read how i would do it in the open beta forum. i go into great detail :)

jin choung
08-11-2008, 11:46 PM
yup, if 10 isnt well on the way and integrated.. :(

ack,

yeah... i said this somewhere else but wtf... they have a SURVEY about whether we should integrate now OR NOT.... so what are the chances that any significant progress has been made?

ack.

jin

pooby
08-12-2008, 01:26 AM
ack,

yeah... i said this somewhere else but wtf... they have a SURVEY about whether we should integrate now OR NOT.... so what are the chances that any significant progress has been made?

ack.

jin


I can see why you're thinking that and I think it was an unwise question for them to put in the survey. You'd think by now Newtek would be a bit more clued up as to how any info they give can be wrung to squeeze out fuel for the speculation fire. I like to speculate as much as the next man, normally with a slightly cynical slant too, but have to admit that I've been proved wrong a couple of times.

However, I DON'T think its safe to assume that no significant progress has been made.


After all, Newtek have already announced that Modelling and 'Layout' will be combined somehow, and they can't really back down on that. They don't need approval from the userbase 2 years after that announcement. So I doubt they are doing it to check if people still want it before starting work on it. it would be ludicrous to keep LW separate. The only arguments seem to come from people who THINK they wont like a unified app.

Who knows why that survey is there but I suspect that it comes from another dept than the developers.

jin choung
08-12-2008, 01:40 AM
hahahahaha....

the department of counterproductivity? : )

i also said this in another thread but at worst its a deliberate wasting of user time (when i took a survey for adobe and the system made it unable for people to complete the survey, they gave me a $10 amazon gift certificate), at best it creates discussion that THEY WILL NOT WANT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES!

if we're going west, you don't want to inspire discussions like this weighing the pros and cons of going west for cryin' out loud! lol... ack! or what all the benefits of going and staying east are!

seriously, this amount of smacking my own forehead can't be good for me....

because of that, i suspect its as on the nose as i think.

and on that note - how long was the transition from si to xsi? over 5 years right?

jin

jin choung
08-12-2008, 01:42 AM
oh, and as for "unwise question" for the survey, it seems to me that the SOLE PURPOSE of the survey was to get a reading for that and the unified file format question... everything else seemed like foreplay "don't seem to eager" fondling....

jin

pooby
08-12-2008, 01:49 AM
I agree that it's the only significant question, and the file format one is just silly. They could have disguised that merging question a bit better by camouflaging it with a LOT of other silly questions.
By using just the one, it's like hiding by crouching down and holding a small leaf over your head.

I just dont want to make an a*ss etc

JBT27
08-12-2008, 03:28 AM
hahaha battle star galactica is NOT film quality. they dont have the kind of deadlines to achieve a flim quality level of polish, i could see individual voxels in alot of shots and cylon animation is atrocious. the level of quality is extraordinary for TV. and ill leave it at that.

panic room?? never heard of it. was it all cg? oh yeah now i remeber its a bad live action movie about some lady in a room and guys trying to kill her... is that your best example of LW use???? you have got to be kidding me.

300?? yeah the arrows. big deal.

lol at ignorant comment. I think that you are impressed by crap because you are an amateur.

No, not just the arrows.....no fanboyism, just straightening the facts - there's a movie on youtube with Screaming Death Monkey and Pixel Magic about '300':

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B0stRHsw5YE

I'm seeing quite a bit more than just the arrows in there.....

Julian.

Lightwolf
08-12-2008, 03:40 AM
You can have multiple instances of Max open, so what's the problem again with merging?
Is Max available for OSX? Kuzey mentioned a OSX specific issue - OSX only allows you to launch a GUI app once (that's part of the style guide from Apple).
Braindead? Yes. A limitation to account for? I dunno, currently LW doesn't either.

Cheers,
Mike

zapper1998
08-12-2008, 03:44 AM
No do not merge Layout and Modeler....

It works fine the way it is ...

Thats my opinion...

Michael

JBT27
08-12-2008, 04:05 AM
That one question is quite damning, certainly - it even grates somewhat against Jay's assertions of the pricing policy changing for, presumably, 10.x.....not that there has been any confirmation of what 10.x actually is anyway, nor indeed when.

I'm more curious than excited about 10.x at this point - it might be that the percieved excitement is more to do with that odd subliminal thing of the version becoming the number '10', when in fact the big stuff we all crave will not appear until LW12.x in 2014.....pie in the sky, sure, but so is everything else about the next 'big' release.

Feature fx is, to me from the outside, a very rarefied world of massive budgets, big teams, long dev and production schedules. Nature of the beast, impressive work (sometimes), fun to see.

But LW is by and large not designed for that world, hasn't been able to keep pace with what's needed. That said, there are plenty of worlds LW does fit into, plenty of good work done with it.....the curiosity about the whole LW thing is that it is leaned on for what it isn't rather than held-up for what it is.

Julian.

The Dommo
08-12-2008, 06:12 AM
I say go integrated - so all tools and what-have-you are always available at any time all the time.

However, I think this could work by having a Tab type of interface to switch between modelling an layout.

A great example is the now-ancient SoftImage 3D on Windows NT andIRIX on Silicon Graphics machines.. It had a standard interface, but 5 'Tabs' you could switch modes between - one for modelling, one called Actor for rigging etc, another for materials & textures, one for excellent animation tools, another for renderings etc. Each time you changed mode, the buttons just updated to reflect the mode you were in, and the large application Title bar would change colour to nidicate the mode.

Simple but very very effective.

Surrealist.
08-12-2008, 06:48 AM
If it was one application, the way things are now, seems like you could create your own custom configs for each type of work you are doing. People do that already.

I think the question of making it one application or not is more of a technical question than it is a user preference question.

I don't think anyone would say no to vertex manipulation in Layout. I don't think anyone would say no to any of the questions that have strictly to do with workflow such as being able to paint weightmaps in Layout etc.

For me I don't care what you have to do to make that happen as long as everything works. If the most efficient way for that to happen is to make it one application, then fine. Or if there are other advantages to that from a programing side, OK. For me the end user, it is the result I am interested in.

So if NewTek is asking me about integration, is that a trick question? Are they asking me if I want all these features in layout if I say yes? If I say no, I don't want these features?

Sorry I did not even get that far in the survey so I don't know how further they got into it.

But I think if NewTek has to ask us if we want these features or not, that is not smart. And it seems to me the question is more technical, not if we want these features. They should not have to ask about that. And I don't think they are.

Or let me put it this way. They had made the announcement that integrating Modeler into Layout was going to be more problematic than originally envisioned. Hence the useless Tab of primitives in Layout.

So now I think the question is more, "Well, we went down this road, oops, not going to be so easy as we thought. What do we do now? Well before we put all of this work into it, let's do a survey and find out if people would be disappointed if we did not integrate. That way, why bother if there is not a screaming need?"

My answer to that is, I don't care. Just make it work. 2 programs 3, 4, I don't care. Just make it all work. Back to the original point. If 1 program makes that easier for you the programmers, and more features for me the user that actually work, then yes. If 1 program means waiting longer for these features or never truly getting them, then no.

Kuzey
08-12-2008, 06:57 AM
Is Max available for OSX? Kuzey mentioned a OSX specific issue - OSX only allows you to launch a GUI app once (that's part of the style guide from Apple).
Braindead? Yes. A limitation to account for? I dunno, currently LW doesn't either.

Cheers,
Mike

Yes on the OSX part, a Big Noooooo on braindead part. :D

Sometimes, I think you guys have been brainwashed with this instancing thing in Winme/XP/Vista etc. for a long time and just don't know any better :neener:

But seriously, I'm all for LW becoming bigger and better but merging for the sake of it could cause too many problems in the long run. A major shift like that needs to be done right and planned all the way. Relying on one OS's way of doing things, to compensate for the problem of a one project app...is not the way to go. Instancing within the program good, instancing within the OS bad....very very bad :hey:

We can't have Newtek coming back to us half way through the process and say we'll have to put this off until LW33.


Kuzey

Lightwolf
08-12-2008, 07:03 AM
Yes on the OSX part, a Big Noooooo on braindead part. :D

Sometimes, I think you guys have been brainwashed with this instancing thing in Winme/XP/Vista etc. for a long time and just don't know any better :neener:

Sorry, but I want to control how many times I can run an app. Surprisingly the shell allows you to do that with command line apps. :)

Then again, that company now can also remove applications from your device (iPhone) after you've installed them, great ;)

Cheers,
Mike

Kuzey
08-12-2008, 07:15 AM
Sorry, but I want to control how many times I can run an app. Surprisingly the shell allows you to do that with command line apps. :)


Can you expand on that for me. Control in what way, do you want to limit the instances of the app to a certain number or you like to have the freedom to open as many as you want and can running a shell do that for you ?


Kuzey

Lightwolf
08-12-2008, 07:18 AM
Can you expand on that for me. Control in what way, do you want to limit the instances of the app to a certain number or you like to have the freedom to open as many as you want and can running a shell do that for you ?
I want the freedom. The shell can't for GUI bases apps, since they all have that limitations in OSX.
Completely command line based apps are no problem.

I mean, we live in the age of the multi-cores, running the same app a few times is not that unusual.
An alternative would of course be a multi-document, single app approach. But I suppose even Apple can't get that right (i.e. how many projects can you open at the same time in Final Cut? How many of these can render/export while you work in another?).

Cheers,
Mike

Kuzey
08-12-2008, 07:32 AM
Ok...now I get ya :)

Maybe, because not everyone has the latest hardware/OS and that could break the software for those people who choose not to upgrade. Not sure either way, but it would be good if they did go in that direction...maybe that's the next step for them. :thumbsup:

Kuzey

Lightwolf
08-12-2008, 07:41 AM
Ok...now I get ya :)

Maybe, because not everyone has the latest hardware/OS and that could break the software for those people who choose not to upgrade.
Huh, why? *puzzled*

Cheers,
Mike

Kuzey
08-12-2008, 07:45 AM
Yes, I've been concentrating on the instancing thing but there are other concerns too.

I tried the Maya demo once, created a sphere and went on to animate it. To my surprise, there were no animation because I was still in surfaces mode. I just don't know, but if I see a timeline at the bottom of the workspace I expect to be able to animate there and then.

Also, I don't like their approach of different workspaces, one for surfaces, polygons etc. and each of those having the same yet different tools like extrude. Extrude should work on whatever mode your in...no matter if you are trying to use it on surfaces or polygons. So what ever Newtek wants to do don't follow Maya....just don't, not when it comes to the interface :hey:

Kuzey

Lightwolf
08-12-2008, 07:47 AM
...just don't, not when it comes to the interface :hey:

No argument here, Maya must have on of the worst GUIs out there unless you heavily customize it.

Cheers,
Mike

Kuzey
08-12-2008, 07:57 AM
Huh, why? *puzzled*

Cheers,
Mike

I was thinking there might be a lot of users still on old hardware & old OS, if Final Cut was truly a multi document app...then it would run slow or not at all on those machines....it's just a wild guest, that's all.

Kuzey

Lightwolf
08-12-2008, 08:03 AM
I was thinking there might be a lot of users still on old hardware & old OS, if Final Cut was truly a multi document app...then it would run slow or not at all on those machines....it's just a wild guest, that's all.
Ah, o.k. Hm, is there any app by Apple that is multi-document that allows you to render two different projects at the same time?

Cheers,
Mike

Kuzey
08-12-2008, 08:22 AM
I would say no, but that would be true for any company with high end products for OSX and that makes it a good reason for Newtek to do so, to stand out of the crowd if you will. :D

Do the adobe products do it, after effects etc.

Again I would think it comes down to the number of computers currently in use that can handle the load of such programs. That and I don't think there are any 64 bit apps out yet?

Wouldn't going 64 bit solve those problems and then apps can truly be multi-document, multi-render single apps.

Kuzey

cresshead
08-12-2008, 08:28 AM
I would say no, but that would be true for any company with high end products for OSX and that makes it a good reason for Newtek to do so, to stand out of the crowd if you will. :D

Do the adobe products do it, after effects etc.

Again I would think it comes down to the number of computers currently in use that can handle the load of such programs. That and I don't think there are any 64 bit apps out yet?

Wouldn't going 64 bit solve those problems and then apps can truly be multi-document, multi-render single apps.

Kuzey

http://www.maxon.net/pages/products/new/r11/more_e.html

cinema 4d 11 is OSX 64bit...

Kuzey
08-12-2008, 08:38 AM
Coolness, is cinema the first 64bit 3d app on OSX.

Mmmmmm......I wonder can it work with multiple projects at the same time :D

Kuzey

Lightwolf
08-12-2008, 08:39 AM
Coolness, is cinema the first 64bit 3d app on OSX.

Mmmmmm......I wonder can it work with multiple projects at the same time :D

Actually, it can... and it was designed that way from the start.

Cheers,
Mike

cresshead
08-12-2008, 08:44 AM
and the demo is up...go have a look yourself!...though the server is crunched currently!

1 unified app working WELL....
have alook at the doodle featre too...
http://www.maxon.net/pages/products/new/r11/mov_doodle.php

similar to the sketch/doodle feature in maya [melscript]

yeah i remember running cinema 6CE in college classes...multiple scenes at once even back then...

The Dommo
08-12-2008, 09:02 AM
Blimey,a 64bit app on a Mac - who'd have thought it?

Andyjaggy
08-12-2008, 09:02 AM
I'm depressed now.

Kuzey
08-12-2008, 01:38 PM
Great to see one of the small guys doing it right. I'm sure Chilton will get a copy of cinema 64bit UB for research and what not :D

The idea of a combined app is officially growing on me.

I'm going to try cinema out as soon as possible...looking good.

Kuzey

Lightwolf
08-12-2008, 01:48 PM
Great to see one of the small guys doing it right.
Small? Last time I checked the C4D developer team was (a bit) larger than LWs... and let's not forget, they are backed my Nemetschek.

I suppose one major advantage they have is that they have managed to turn C4D into a very solid platform right from the start.

Cheers,
Mike

meshpig
08-13-2008, 03:51 AM
Blimey,a 64bit app on a Mac - who'd have thought it?

Blimey indeed!!

meshpig
08-13-2008, 04:13 AM
No argument here, Maya must have one of the worst GUIs out there unless you heavily customize it.

Cheers,
Mike

I want that carved in stone. Won't tell you the story.

m:)

Darth Mole
08-13-2008, 04:27 AM
I'm with one of the early posters: one app, but keep the modeler and layout sections separate (like it is now, but where the hub is invisible and works). I hate trying to model in a cluttered scene, and a single window would be painfully busy in terms of menus etc.

I also like having the model file separate, so it's easy to reuse without having to extricate it from a scene file first.

meshpig
08-13-2008, 05:19 AM
I'm with one of the early posters: one app, but keep the modeler and layout sections separate (like it is now, but where the hub is invisible and works). I hate trying to model in a cluttered scene, and a single window would be painfully busy in terms of menus etc.

I also like having the model file separate, so it's easy to reuse without having to extricate it from a scene file first.

Yeah, like I don't think anyone here has really nailed here what it is that people really like about LW amidst the rush to be also seen to be solving the burgeoning problem with the supposedly global economy in the same breath.

m

Sarford
08-13-2008, 05:30 AM
I'm for one app, definitley. Different menu layouts for modeling and layout is ok I guess, but it is vital to be able to reach all the tools from within the program without swapping workspaces or windows etc.

I would also love to see a new scene file format. One that includes everything, animation, models, lights, expressions, materials etc but it would be great if you also could reference any of it if you want. So all parts (animation, models, lightrigs etc) should also be able to be saved seperatly.

pooby
08-13-2008, 05:41 AM
For anyone who thinks that a scene has to be cluttered just because you want to model in it, here's a short vid in XSI.
It shows how easy it is to isolate an object and model on it even WHILST the animation is playing on the timeline.

XSI has a bar on the left that just changes between MODEL, ANIMATE, RENDER, SIMULATE and HAIR. giving you the appropriate tools for the job. There is no special modelling modes as such. You don't need them. It's very easy to do whatever you like by just changing the views to suit.
Usually of course you wouldnt model something whilst the animation is playing, this is an extreme example of how simple it can be.

http://www.mediafire.com/download.php?ignrplfaj2w

colkai
08-13-2008, 07:29 AM
Yup, that's one thing I liked about the ModTool I played about with, showed how to separate but keep logical. Not saying it was the only thing I liked mind you. ;)

Stooch
08-14-2008, 01:55 AM
No, not just the arrows.....no fanboyism, just straightening the facts - there's a movie on youtube with Screaming Death Monkey and Pixel Magic about '300':

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B0stRHsw5YE

I'm seeing quite a bit more than just the arrows in there.....

Julian.

"primarily we had to do alot of set extensions and environments"

that says it all. i clearyl stated, "hair, cloth, CA the full monty" how do set extensions and some fake smoke qualify?

meshpig
08-14-2008, 10:10 AM
we want/need an app that does it quicker/smarter, with more control.

Terrible cliché Historically speaking:devil:

m

Wrap
08-14-2008, 10:20 AM
I like the modeler/layout as it is, I have to say though, I would like more modeling/object editing capability in the layout as constantly switching can be time consuming. However I still think the ability to model while rendering is a bonus.

Larry_g1s
08-14-2008, 10:34 AM
lol at ignorant comment. I think that you are impressed by crap because you are an amateur.Hey...take it easy. If I'm correct, he was one of the presenters last year at Siggraph and had some really great work. Not an amateur by any stretch.

Stooch
08-14-2008, 10:37 AM
Hey...take it easy. If I'm correct, he was one of the presenters last year at Siggraph and had some really great work. Not an amateur by any stretch.

i looked at his company reel and have seen personal reels that easily top it. i presented this year at siggraph, whats your point? im not being confrontational unless someone confronts me.

Larry_g1s
08-14-2008, 10:55 AM
i looked at his company reel and have seen personal reels that easily top it. i presented this year at siggraph, whats your point? im not being confrontational unless someone confronts me.I wasn't validating his work because he was a presenter at Siggraph last year, I was saying that's where I saw the work. And I still stand by that I thank the work they showed last year was very stylized and solid. So I was just saying let's not make any personal attacks. :)

When did you present? I was only there for one day (Tues.), would have liked to check it out.

Stooch
08-14-2008, 01:57 PM
wednesday, talked about indy film process and showed some clips from a CG movie, we happened to be using LW and maya in our pipeline so we discussed that a little bit but it was mostly about the process rather than software.

CoryC
08-14-2008, 02:20 PM
...it was mostly about the process rather than software.

What an insane concept.

Cageman
08-14-2008, 04:46 PM
For anyone who thinks that a scene has to be cluttered just because you want to model in it, here's a short vid in XSI.
It shows how easy it is to isolate an object and model on it even WHILST the animation is playing on the timeline.

That reminds me of the demo Lux did (years back) when they showed a mocaped (simple) character and how you could isolate the object in its bindpose and model on it, while the animation was played back in another window.

I didn't realise XSI had this functionality at all... great stuff! I don't think even Maya has this?

EDIT: And yes... I'm sick and tired of Modeler/Layout separation. Simply too many things related to animation/rigging which requires workarounds (easy ones, but still..).

Thanks for the demo Pooby!

Cageman
08-14-2008, 04:53 PM
"primarily we had to do alot of set extensions and environments"

that says it all. i clearyl stated, "hair, cloth, CA the full monty" how do set extensions and some fake smoke qualify?

Don't mix what Screaming Deathmonkey did compared to Pixel Magic... Screaming Deathmonkey used ClothFX mixed with bonechains to create the smoke. Not as trivial as you make it sound.

If you want to see some Pixel Magic creatures done in LW, take a look at Good Luck Chuck...

http://www.pixelmagicfx.com/Gallery.htm

Check out the reel... Some shots even mix real penguins with CG-ones... if you click on Good Luck Chuck poster, you'll see some stills as well.

toby
08-14-2008, 11:32 PM
Ah, o.k. Hm, is there any app by Apple that is multi-document that allows you to render two different projects at the same time?

Quicktime :O