PDA

View Full Version : Which is best, LW or Maya?



Akeakamai
06-09-2009, 07:29 PM
I am interested in going back to school to learn 3D animation. Here's a little background about how I discovered LightWave.

I'm a huge fan of the excellent science-fiction TV show called Babylon 5, which first aired in 1994. I was so captivated by the special effects that I researched how it was done. They had used LightWave 3D. You wouldn't believe the show was made that long ago because that's how good the effects were. And even today, they could rival any current show where they use special effects. I gotta say, I'm biased.

I would like an honest opinion regarding the various 3D animation programs that may be available. I don't currently own such a program and I've never used one, but I want to learn.

I read that Maya is the "industry standard." Yet, I also read that LightWave is one of the best programs out there. So, how do I choose which one I want to learn? I would like to make an informed decision.

Thanks in advance for everyone's help.

- Akeakamai -

animotion
06-09-2009, 07:43 PM
This has been the most ongoing debate since 2000BC!

Best at what? 3D is a very broad field.

Instead of asking which is the best, I would suggest finding out what features are important to you by doing a lot of research. This list of important things will definitely change for you once you start getting more experienced in 3D. They all have there strengths and weaknesses.

Hopper
06-09-2009, 07:45 PM
I am by no means a professional in this particular industry, but in my honest opinion, you will most likely be using Maya in a classroom setting simply for the reasons you've already stated. However, the basics of 3D modeling apply to almost all applications, so LightWave is an excellent (and low cost) way to get started. Professionals use many tools to get the job done because they all have their particular strengths and weaknesses, so the more tools you are familiar with the better off you will be.

Personally, I think LightWave has the shortest learning curve and I've tried Blender, Maya, and XSI so far. I keep coming back to LightWave because it's more comfortable to work with. Note - I actually started with Maya and almost gave it up because it didn't fit how I thought it should work. That's all personal preference of course, but I'm just offering my personal opinion as an amateur.

I also don't animate much, so I can't really offer an objective opinion on that.

adamredwoods
06-09-2009, 07:52 PM
1...2...3...4... I declare a thumb war!

I'd get Blender first. Learn it. Then I'd purchase another 3D package, once I started to understand the basics of 3D modeling, texturing, rendering, lighting, animating, deformations, etc.

You can also get the trial version for Lightwave. USE IT. Is it comfortable? Does it make sense? Use the free tutorials on this website.

I'd stay away from Autodesk's products.... they have too many that do the SAME thing. Wait until they unify their product line. Check out Modo, it's on the up-and-up. Lightwave Core will be hot in about two years.

If you really want to get into 3d, you'll need at least 3 software packages, because...

Which is better? None, they all fall short at some point.

Also see threads like these, since this topic is brought up A LOT:
http://newtek.com/forums/showthread.php?t=25677&highlight=maya+lightwave
http://newtek.com/forums/showthread.php?t=25396&highlight=maya+lightwave

End of discussion.

Mr Rid
06-09-2009, 07:56 PM
You might as well post a topic less controversial like, 'which is best, Muslims or Christians?' This topic has been covered in countless other threads. You might want to advanced search for 'Maya vs Lightwave', 'Lightwave vs Maya', 'Lightwave vs the Smog Monster'.

adamredwoods
06-09-2009, 08:01 PM
'Lightwave vs the Smog Monster'.

Or LW vs Notepad! :)
http://newtek.com/forums/showthread.php?t=71011&highlight=notepad

hrgiger
06-09-2009, 08:02 PM
If you want to use software that has been acquired by an evil, monopolizing, profit-driven corporation then you'll want to use Maya. It is owned by Autodesk which also owns 3D Max and Softimage XSI. And they're laying off people in droves right now.

On a more serious note, you have to ask yourself some questions. How much are you willing to spend? Are you looking to make a profit or do 3D for a living? What is it you want to accomplish with the software? If you're just doing this to learn right now, you may want to consider an educational license which is very affordable.

Cohen
06-09-2009, 09:12 PM
If you are looking for fun and are in the process of learning, I'd recommend modo. But that fun will be short lived as soon as want to broaden your skillset for character animation, fx work: particle clouds, voxels, sprite, volumes; fluids and gas effects, cloth simulations, rigid body dynamic simulations etc. All this king of the hill stuff not in modo basically. But if you're starting out, modo is easy to learn, and lots of fun. And you can get it for cheap right now before 401 ships. ($775) http://www.sharbor.com/products/LUXN0300008.html

I also think CORE and the lw 9.6 bundle is a sweet deal. I know I'm not allowed to say much than what newtek has already stated publicly. But I've been doing 3d for a long time, have watched all these applications grow up since their infancy really, and can tell you that what ever you are going to get, there is always going to be something better out the following year. So dont stress on getting the best of the best. Get whats most fun, easy to use, allows you to turn around lots of work really fast, and doesnt break the bank in the process. To me, Newtek has always provided me the above. I think the modo group will do the same. I'm on the Core bandwagon though because I believe they cater to a much more experienced and professional crowd with what they are offering. Something that is just right for me. So if you think about being in 3d for the long haul, whether hobby or work, I think Core will be a good bet. But if your totally new to this craft, then perhaps modo will be a better pick.

I'd stay away from Cinema 4d. Great product if you dont mind being nickled and dimed to death. I'm not going to tell you to stay away from the 800 lb gorrilla. But am going to tell you that all the innovation that I've seen in the "industry" has come not from that gigantic corporation, but from small developers who can wager the time and expenses to try something new in hopes of high reward.

Oh yeah, blender is open source, so free to use. It being free doesnt mean its junkware, its actually good. Their next version will undoubtedly be their best release ever. So maybe you should abstain from buying some expensive software, get a feel for blender now, and take it from there once you are comfortable with 3d. That way you have a better understand of what the various companies are selling you, and you can make a much better decision for yourself as to what you need.

JeffrySG
06-09-2009, 09:15 PM
You might as well post a topic less controversial like, 'which is best, Muslims or Christians?' This topic has been covered in countless other threads. You might want to advanced search for 'Maya vs Lightwave', 'Lightwave vs Maya', 'Lightwave vs the Smog Monster'.

LMAO



The only thing that matters is your skill set and talent. You can learn any application that your employer wants you to. Just become a great 3d artist and worry about the rest a little later.

Sekhar
06-09-2009, 10:17 PM
'Lightwave vs the Smog Monster'
:thumbsup:

Akeakamai
06-09-2009, 11:48 PM
Thank you all for this great information. It's been very helpful.

virtualcomposer
06-10-2009, 01:09 AM
Personally, I've tried using 3D Max and Maya in the past and it seems incredibly confusing. I really cannot stand 3D Max. It's like a really cluttered webpage and it take you 10 minutes to find the Home button type app. The learning curve is pretty high as well. For me, LW seems to be a great fit of cost, ease of use, and quality. Just my opinion of course but I'm totally sold on LW. As a 3D artist as well as many other people on this forum, I use other apps along with LW such as After Effects, Photoshop, Final Cut and Vue. They all work together to give me what I'm looking for. :thumbsup:

Astralworkz
06-10-2009, 01:31 AM
Is it just me or..
Whenever I try to learn differnet app I just fail, I'm talking about XSI/Maya I tried twice with the trials and both the interfaces seems so confusing(esp. the xsi, I just hate those peaple talking: blah blah it's so simple for lw people..It took me a while to find how you can turn d cc subd on mesh:)

Ok to the point, I'm using blender since...'99(I even pay 100$ for the c-key:D), So I would recommend blender. I'm using also 3dsmax in my daily job[occasionally I'm not a pro, but whenever I want to create something it just works, yeah the UI is very rational to me:P].
Lightwave UI?to me it's poetry, it's so simple and effective, that I couldn't even imagine a thing to compare it to, no words..:).

Anyway:

"It's the artist, no the tool"
It depends what you're gonna do, but considering this whole market "situation" we're at at the moment, I would select the cheaper option:)

IMI
06-10-2009, 02:44 AM
Maya is definitely better, no question about it. Consider these points:

*It costs a great deal more than most 3D apps.
*It takes quite some time to learn.
*It has Mental Ray, which is so good you only get to use it with a couple machines before you have to spend a whole lot more money on more render nodes to be able to render your animation.
*It comes in subscription form, which is the 3D app equivalent of paying your country club dues. Very high class.
*Training videos sold for it are often "lectures" as opposed to lessons. A lecture is much more highbrow than a lesson or a tutorial and therefore better.
*It is the software of choice at real 3D websites such as CG Talk, therefore, much better.

Al the above combined is proof positive that Maya is in fact head and shoulders above all the rest. You don't want to be a LigtWave user. Our only real purpose is to provide the Maya people comedy relief. ;)

probiner
06-10-2009, 03:29 AM
I simply dont get why text interface is considered old and out of use. Its so mental, so relaxing.

The first time i saw Maya's interface...

THIS GOT A DAMN TOON BUTTON FOR EACH FRIGGIN OPERATION...
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3214/2953377031_4cab16a194.jpg


Its... like... :gotpics: (ooh there's a toon, oh there's another one. Oh and yet, another one too. Oh My... they are all over the place. I'm not stupid i could read)

But this is just a silly matter that means nothing in terms of performance.


You didn't posted your intents for using 3D.

Cheers and good luck in your 3D CG journey :)

virtualcomposer
06-10-2009, 09:23 AM
Maya is definitely better, no question about it. Consider these points:

*It costs a great deal more than most 3D apps.
*It takes quite some time to learn.
*It has Mental Ray, which is so good you only get to use it with a couple machines before you have to spend a whole lot more money on more render nodes to be able to render your animation.
*It comes in subscription form, which is the 3D app equivalent of paying your country club dues. Very high class.
*Training videos sold for it are often "lectures" as opposed to lessons. A lecture is much more highbrow than a lesson or a tutorial and therefore better.
*It is the software of choice at real 3D websites such as CG Talk, therefore, much better.

Al the above combined is proof positive that Maya is in fact head and shoulders above all the rest. You don't want to be a LigtWave user. Our only real purpose is to provide the Maya people comedy relief. ;)

I totally agree. And my opinions about 3D Max require to many choice words to put on this forum. 3D Max is like a horribley designed website. I hate it almost as much as NBC's televion lineup! Horrible!

robertoortiz
06-10-2009, 09:30 AM
Hey guys remember when I pointed out recently that certain threads are slanted from their first post.

Well...this is one of them.

BTW IMI post is right on the money.

Nicolas Jordan
06-10-2009, 09:34 AM
I read that Maya is the "industry standard."

The truth is that there isn't any industry standard, just a perceived standard.

Red_Oddity
06-10-2009, 09:51 AM
Poor little horsey, beaten to death...and then beat some more...

Just go for Maya as AD pushes that harder on schools than some dealer pushes his wares on street corners (both will try to get you addicted to their peddled wares, and both cost an arm and a leg)

Anyhoo, you are asking quite broad though, you might aswell have asked 'which is better, a horse or a car', to which we must ask 'for what? driving? work? food? gift for amish relative?...sex?'

Nicolas Jordan
06-10-2009, 10:11 AM
Poor little horsey, beaten to death...and then beat some more...


:twak:

Matt
06-10-2009, 10:40 AM
LightWave, it's everywhere.

;)

IMI
06-10-2009, 11:36 AM
Model. Animate. Render.
Go ahead, make a scene.

At least LightWave gives you a hint, a clue, an idea where you're supposed to be headed. LightWave is... never having to say, "I'm sorry". Yes, I know that makes no sense, but it sounds good. ;)

I actually like Maya though. And as long as I keep building new computers and selling my older ones, I can keep using the demo for free. :D
It's not too bad at all when you get down into it and get past the initial WTF?! stage. Personally though I think Mental Ray in Maya needs a total design overhaul. I can't tell you guys how many times I've wondered to myself if they intentionally set out to make it as confusing and convoluted as possible.
Most of the attribute controls "feel" somehow archaic, too, but I love the whole shelf idea. Just totally cool to be able to drag a script or part of a script to a shelf for easy one-click access any time you want it. If there's one thing I think LW really *needs* is more easy access to what's going on under the hood, and Maya has that in spades.

adamredwoods
06-10-2009, 11:39 AM
http://i676.photobucket.com/albums/vv123/Gardnerius/beating-a-dead-horse.jpg

Matt
06-10-2009, 12:17 PM
http://i676.photobucket.com/albums/vv123/Gardnerius/beating-a-dead-horse.jpg

ROTFL!!!!!! Nice one Adam! Classic! (Office Space too, love that film!)

Greenlaw
06-10-2009, 01:49 PM
You might want to advanced search for 'Maya vs Lightwave', 'Lightwave vs Maya', 'Lightwave vs the Smog Monster'.

Lightwave. But Godzilla beats everybody.

Greenlaw

mav3rick
06-10-2009, 02:04 PM
milk 3d

Cageman
06-10-2009, 02:13 PM
Considering what you pay for and what you can get out of the software, I would say LW is the better one. However, being able to get alot out of LW does indeed require alot of time learning how the software works.

This goes for any software out there btw, but I have found numerous times that Maya without DEEP knowledge of MEL will not get you as far as in LW with DEEP knowledge of how the tools in LW works (in most cases that is).

I prefer LW because it allows me to go very far without having to code anything (actually, I have never coded/scripted anything so far). That is also the reason why LW has had such a strong presence within TV VFX where the deadlines are, more or less, INSANE...no time to MEL-fix stuff in order to get things out the door.

There are, however, reasons why Maya is the dominant tool in feature film production; the extensibility/integration of the software is much deeper compared to LW. In Maya, everything is based on MEL, so, if you know MEL, there are few limitations with the software. There are other usefull things as well, such as any type of object can influence any other types of objects, which opens alot of doors for smart ways to rig/skin characters etc.

If you get the chance, make sure to learn both Maya and LW, because that can really make production a hell of alot of fun and they do indeed make up for eachothers shortcommings.

Cheers!

:)

SplineGod
06-10-2009, 02:29 PM
Also consider that Lightwave as we now know it is on its way out. Newtek is concentrating on Core. Maya is apparently also considered industry standard by Newtek and are apparently working very hard to copy many of its features.
Put it this way nobody in this industry will ever fault you for learning Maya....

Sekhar
06-10-2009, 02:42 PM
Also, not sure if anyone mentioned this: both Maya and LightWave have trials, why don't you download and check them out for yourself?

Cageman
06-10-2009, 02:57 PM
Also consider that Lightwave as we now know it is on its way out. Newtek is concentrating on Core. Maya is apparently also considered industry standard by Newtek and are apparently working very hard to copy many of its features.

Not a bad thing, imho.

Lets see where CORE ends up before saying to much now. What I see though, is that NewTek has a great oppertunity to create an new software that could end up at being as easy to use as LW, but as powerful as Maya when it comes to scripting, rigging, dynamics etc.

Stooch
06-10-2009, 02:57 PM
i love maya, i get to pull off more complex stuff, its generally more fun that lightwave projects, it also doesnt require as much repetitive, manual, dumb labor and usually jobs with maya pay better.

what you will get alot of in this thread is fanboys who cant force themselves to move onto a superior program because they are too afraid to learn new things.

I use lightwave here and there to pull of certain things but generally its a standby. and its not overpriced, its just lightwave is APPROPRIATELLY priced given the severe limitations it has vs maya.

well see if core pulls it off. but for now dont compare apples to oranges. or apples to watermelons in this case.

Mr Rid
06-10-2009, 02:58 PM
The truth is that there isn't any industry standard, just a perceived standard.

... which amounts to the same thing. Maya FAR outsells LW, is an 'industry standard' because it is a much more versatile app, and there are about 25 times more jobs available than in LW, judging from a number of CG job sources I view regularly.

CreativeHeads.net lists dozens of new Maya jobs available monthly in entertainment, games, production... I have not seen a single Lightwave job post in about six months. I see maybe two or three on Flay a month that are usually in England on small projects. The few LW positions out there are usually filled by word of mouth. Maya positions are all over the friggin place.

Nicolas Jordan
06-10-2009, 03:12 PM
What I see though, is that NewTek has a great oppertunity to create an new software that could end up at being as easy to use as LW, but as powerful as Maya when it comes to scripting, rigging, dynamics etc.

Yep, that definitely looks like what they are doing from everything I have read and seen.

Cageman
06-10-2009, 03:20 PM
i love maya, i get to pull off more complex stuff, its generally more fun that lightwave projects, it also doesnt require as much repetitive, manual, dumb labor and usually jobs with maya pay better.

Could you elaborate more on what the manual labour you are having in LW?




what you will get alot of in this thread is fanboys who cant force themselves to move onto a superior program because they are too afraid to learn new things.

Superior is hardly the word I would use, since I constantly find new ways of solving complex problems using LW instead of Maya, that makes our Maya-gurus say "Wow... how did you do that?". LWs simplicity is a blessing in such cases, where things that previously would require alot of dynamics and simulation, can be solved with ease using a bunch of morphs driven by textures + animated displacements (just to mention one of the things Maya is really, really bad at). I may be using LW in unorthodox ways, but that has, imho, payed off by a large magnitude, especially at work-related stuff in a positive way for the team.

So no, LW isn't as lowend as you make it sound like.

CGI Addict
06-10-2009, 03:34 PM
As much as I like using LW I agree with "Maya = Industry Standard". If you are hoping one day to work in a professional CG environment, odds are that a majority of studios will be asking for Maya experience.

wacom
06-10-2009, 03:38 PM
The one you can afford is my first answer.

Then- what do you want to do with it? If you simply MUST be employed at a largish to mega studio then you should give Maya a look for sure. That is if you want to compete with the mass hordes of users. If you're willing to travel and get technical then you could also give XSI and Houdini a try...then you'll be "specialized" which is a nice way of saying there are fewer jobs for you, but you can command a higher price (at least that's the theory).

If your art is fantastico enough then ANY 3D package will get your foot in the door esp. if it's based on animation or modeling skills IMHO- basic concepts and talent for those skills hold true across software IMHO. If you're going solo- which believe it or not more people do than you'd think- then remember- to the client a good pixel is a good pixel- no mater if it was made in MS paint or Houdini 10.

Strongly consider if you have other interests art wise outside of movies and TV. Maybe you like design or illustration? These are viable routes to go and 3D can really enhance your employment prospects. You become specialized in that you know what kerning is and understand CMYK along with IK/fK. Yeah...less glam...but then your bank account will not know the difference!

Either way I'd say you need to get your feet wet for about...hmmm...three years with 3D to figure out what kind of user you "might" be! How many people here have met a proficient 3D "professional" that wasn't at least some what obsessed with the process? It's a long term steep learning curve IMHO.

Don't forget there are a lot of other applications out there (MODO, C4D, XSI, Houdini...some thing that starts with a 3 or m). If you decided you want to be an FX guru, but you don't want to pay and arm and an leg then Houdini is your program IMHO- at least while you're learning it...

I started with LW and still have a hard time thinking there is another package better to get started with regardless of where you end up. The price, ease of use, and expertise and helpfulness of the user base is unsurpassed.

adamredwoods
06-10-2009, 03:48 PM
Maya is for tech-heads that like to program more than they like to make graphics. :P

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/38/84912109_80740bba6e.jpg

Cageman
06-10-2009, 03:54 PM
As much as I like using LW I agree with "Maya = Industry Standard". If you are hoping one day to work in a professional CG environment, odds are that a majority of studios will be asking for Maya experience.

The majority of studios also looks at competence in being creative and good at the craft, rather than the tools you use. If you can create a kick-*** reel with LW, that shouldn't be a problem, because if you are GOOD, they'll want you and will give the time needed to learn the app the studio has. Not often, but sometimes, they may also be open for you bringing in the software you used and see if it would be little or alot of effort to allow you to continue using your favorite app, but piped into the existing toolset.

Maybe it is unwise to send reels to studios looking for positions that requires someone who is proficient with app x when you have done your stuff in app y. Most of the time, such positions requires one to be able to hit the ground running. Many studios does, from time to time, look for a Character Animator or Modeler, and in such cases, a reel done in app x when the studio is using app y, doesn't really matter, since your skills will come through no matter what app you have used, and that is what they want.

Of course, with the perception that Stooch has, someone with an LW-reel that looks very good, is actually ALOT BETTER as an artist, since he/she has used an inferior package, so even more plus if you've done a reel with LW! ;)

:)

hrgiger
06-10-2009, 05:02 PM
Also consider that Lightwave as we now know it is on its way out. Newtek is concentrating on Core. Maya is apparently also considered industry standard by Newtek and are apparently working very hard to copy many of its features.
Put it this way nobody in this industry will ever fault you for learning Maya....

You seem pretty unhappy with the direction that CORE is taking, Larry. And I notice you seem to be laying this all at Newtek's feet. The truth is, Newtek is just giving us what a lot of its user base has been asking for...

SplineGod
06-10-2009, 05:14 PM
Bottom line is that the LW used to create babylon5 is on its way out. Core is not LW and there doesnt appear to be too much of the LW workflow there ayway.
Newtek seems to be spending more time making Core look or behave llike Maya, Max etc. That being the case then why not just go with the actual standard? Those apps at least have a track record, are being used by studios and have tremendous resouces behind them plus the fact that it will take a very long time for Core to be production ready not including the time it will take to convince studios and others that its worth even bothering with. Regardless, even the current version of blender which is free is far more powerful then the version of LW that was used to create babylon 5.

Matt
06-10-2009, 05:14 PM
The issue with making an application very Maya like, is, well, people might as well go and use Maya itself, what's the point!

I'm sure CORE will in the end be it's own man, but we do need to be careful that it doesn't end up with a hotch potch of workflow with no unique identity of its own.

I'm hoping CORE will end up being the good parts of other apps that _compliment_ and work well with the LightWave workflow philosophy, so it builds on the essence of LightWave we love, but extending it further so we leave behind the bad parts of LightWave that have restricted it in certain areas.

I think that's the idea with CORE anyway, so I'm not really saying anything new here!

:D

hrgiger
06-10-2009, 05:16 PM
Core is not LW and there doesnt appear to be too much of the LW workflow there ayway.


It's still pretty early to even say what CORE workflow will be like.

SplineGod
06-10-2009, 05:28 PM
Regardless of how early it is how hard is it to at least provide some kind of minimal familiarity such as hotkeys, UI navigation etc?
Matt has a very good point...plus why bother going off in some direction for months then telling us to go back to doing it the LW way later in the future?
As Matt pointed out its just encouraging alot of pro LW users to go and look elsewhere.

Steamthrower
06-10-2009, 05:36 PM
Here in the studio we use both Maya and Lightwave. I'd like to see us use two programs that work together better with each other, but in the meantime we're stuck with these two.

I've studied 3D for years, yet until the last 5 months I wasn't employed at a studio dedicated to media production. What I've seen recently, both in freelance work, day job work, upcoming stints at Gnomon...Maya is the top dog, whether I like it or not.

Lightwave is merely a respected 2nd along with Max and C4D and a few other programs. I know LW pretty much inside and out for the broadcast type stuff I use it for. But in so many aspects, it's just not there yet.

Carm3D
06-10-2009, 05:51 PM
If Core uses a system like IKBooster but with better interface, and has better NLA.. I will be all upons. Right now I am distancing myself from Core as it seems to be little more than a modeler.

hrgiger
06-10-2009, 06:27 PM
Regardless of how early it is how hard is it to at least provide some kind of minimal familiarity such as hotkeys, UI navigation etc?


I think both Chuck and Jay have given explanation in this area. The only thing that modeler has to worry about is modeling. CORE models,animates, and renders under the same roof and so everything doesn't so simply translate over from modeler. I'm sure with the customization that will be available to CORE, one would be able to set up a similar theme to Lightwave's old modeler if one chose to.
I dont' find CORE that drastically different, especially with the latest build, that it should cause any real difficulty for anyone who is willing to spend more then just a few minutes with it.

SplineGod
06-10-2009, 07:04 PM
So making the hotkeys and UI is simply too resource intensive to do straight out of the gate?
Regardless of all this Core isnt even clsoe to being a solution for someone wanting to even do
model, texture, light and animate even basic spaceships. And since LW as its currently known is on its
way out Id still recommend Blender for someone just wanting to learn 3d.

hrgiger
06-10-2009, 07:11 PM
So making the hotkeys and UI is simply too resource intensive to do straight out of the gate?


I don't know Larry, I forgot to become a software engineer so I honestly couldn't say one way or another what is the best way to implement a major 3D applicaiton. 2 years were spent designing CORE, perhaps they actually have a plan, a plan that won't be readily apparent to us this early in the actual implementation of said design.

I guess having learned a few new applications in the last year or two, I don't find it so frustratingly difficult to learn a few new hotkeys.

SplineGod
06-10-2009, 07:16 PM
So which part of the Core 'process' from the announcements, thru the reveal videos, etc etc makes you feel like theres a 'plan'?

Cohen
06-10-2009, 08:21 PM
Hi Larry, I'm just now in at the 300's level computer science program at CMPS, university of maryland, and have been studying OOP programming and design for quite a while now. I can tell you that from this paper, http://www.newtek.com/lightwave/core/techfaq.php, requires a big plan from a design perspective. Every object that is spawned will likely have methods that can be called upon by other objects or classes, and to design something of the magnitude that "inter-node communications are effectively unlimited" will require writing a huge set of your own internal classes, and is not as easy as whipping together a set of tools that dont know hot to "talk" to eachother (as modeler and layout are). And you cant just put it together so quickly, nail the workflow, and put it out there for sale as luxology had done with their 1.0 release (this is from my understanding of the challenges newtek is facing.) Right now, they are focused on 'fill in the blank', so you know once that is done, they can focus on your concerns throughout the rest of the dev cycle.

SplineGod
06-10-2009, 08:41 PM
I understand all that. I have continued to use LW over the years because of the workflow.
I havent seen anything like that workflow even on the most basic of levels such as the two things I mentioned. hotkeys and UI navigation.
Its seems more logical to give something to users that has some feeling of familiarity from the get go...anyways Im repeating what Ive already stated many times in other venues and all this is getting way beyond the scope of the the orginal question which Ive also already answered. :)

Stooch
06-10-2009, 08:53 PM
Could you elaborate more on what the manual labour you are having in LW?

scripting. pipeline integration. Loading and storing assets, automating tools for massive scene buildings. like making a city generator. overall maya enjoys superior integration with others tools. realflow being one prime example. Also alot of things are very easily scriptable since you can see pretty much everything that you do echo in script editor. something that you simply don thave with current lw. undos work great, also building to reference photos in maya is way faster and easier. no need to deal with object layers, referencing, instancing, render layers, render passes, things like paint effects, good cloth and various other little things that add up.



Superior is hardly the word I would use, since I constantly find new ways of solving complex problems using LW instead of Maya, that makes our Maya-gurus say "Wow... how did you do that?". LWs simplicity is a blessing in such cases, where things that previously would require alot of dynamics and simulation, can be solved with ease using a bunch of morphs driven by textures + animated displacements (just to mention one of the things Maya is really, really bad at). I may be using LW in unorthodox ways, but that has, imho, payed off by a large magnitude, especially at work-related stuff in a positive way for the team.

So no, LW isn't as lowend as you make it sound like.

ehh... "wowing" other people isnt that hard. I constantly "wow" lightwave users with various maya features all the time. you find alot of things that lightwave can do... well guess what, i have been finding alot of things that lightwave CANT do and have been doing so for over a decade. Basically, there are limited instances where i would use lw over maya, and will do so. but to say that lightwave is a better choice or overall superior requires a very heavy dose of crack.

as far as familiarity and "clutter" that pople complain about?

very easy solution. I just move all of the shelves into a seperate folder so that i start off with a clean slate, then i start my own shelf and quickly (ctrl-alt-shift + click on command) fill them with only tools that i want to see. You can also define hotkeys right out of the shelf button editor.

oh and not to mention a bunch of tools i wrote myself.

the hot box toolbar is also really nice, nothin gbeats a quick flick of the wrist to get where you want.

oh speaking of morphs and animated displacements used to replace complex simulationms???? DUH. been there done that. infact alot of good maya people will use morphs and procedural rigs using connection editors, script editors, set driven channels, morphs, displaceD nodes. etc. and have a handy little controller with handles, limits, whole interfaces if need be. cmon now. all that basic stuff that lighwave hacks out of necessity are a given in other apps. infact one thing that i do give a nodd to lightwave for is forcing me to learn workarounds out of necessity that also can help me out in a pinch when using maya.

Dexter2999
06-10-2009, 08:59 PM
I think if someone has access to the EDU licenses and is learning, I'd push Maya.
First, there are more paying jobs for Maya/Renderman people.
Second, at this point you would be putting energy into learning 9.6 to do something in LW but this is all changing so your efforts get shortchanged a little. You would be learning to relearn later.

Someone said earlier that Newtek is just trying to give users what they have been asking for. Seems like for many users that boils down to Maya at half price.

If you are not talking about getting an EDU license, I'd recommend Blender for learning principles.

I really have enjoyed my years of trying to learn 3D with LW but at this point I would be hard pressed to recommend it to someone just starting out. This is an awkward time for Newtek trying to bridge from LW to CORE.

CGI Addict
06-10-2009, 10:12 PM
The majority of studios also look at competence in being creative and good at the craft, rather than the tools you use.
:)

I don't know about "majority", but some are willing to. Some studios use proprietary software mixed in, in which case you're right, only skill will get the job.


Maybe it is unwise to send reels to studios looking for positions that require someone who is proficient with app x when you have done your stuff in app y. Most of the time, such positions requires one to be able to hit the ground running.
:)

Hence my reasoning that "Maya=Industry Standard" is an important part of someone looking to choose a 3D app. Some companies simply won't or don't have the time to get workers up to speed.

Bottom line is if you're looking to increase your odds of employment at a studio, get Maya, get great at what you do and furnish a killer reel.

Sure there are still a few LW based studios and even some that use LW part-time, but those are in the minority. I use LW but have also been spending a good amount of time learning Maya.

Titus
06-10-2009, 10:36 PM
After five pages the question remains, which is best?:devil:

CGI Addict
06-10-2009, 10:39 PM
4 pages!

UnCommonGrafx
06-10-2009, 10:59 PM
Watch: more of these posts will start showing up soon. NewTek must have something up the pike for us soon as these things always seem to show up at that time... Particularly by folks with less than 15 posts.

Cageman
06-11-2009, 01:33 AM
Regardless of how early it is how hard is it to at least provide some kind of minimal familiarity such as hotkeys, UI navigation etc?

Maybe you should pay more attention in the HC-forums then?



Matt has a very good point...plus why bother going off in some direction for months then telling us to go back to doing it the LW way later in the future?

Because "the LW way" isn't really leveraging on the concepts as of now, maybe? There are really tons of reasons why things are the way they are. I'm not at all worried about it...



As Matt pointed out its just encouraging alot of pro LW users to go and look elsewhere.

Uhm... ok... as far as I know, most LW-pros today are familiar with several tools, such as Maya, XSI etc. so your point is kind of moot really.

Cageman
06-11-2009, 01:48 AM
oh speaking of morphs and animated displacements used to replace complex simulationms???? DUH. been there done that. infact alot of good maya people will use morphs and procedural rigs using connection editors, script editors, set driven channels, morphs, displaceD nodes. etc. and have a handy little controller with handles, limits, whole interfaces if need be. cmon now. all that basic stuff that lighwave hacks out of necessity are a given in other apps. infact one thing that i do give a nodd to lightwave for is forcing me to learn workarounds out of necessity that also can help me out in a pinch when using maya.

Your perception that I'm hacking LW is totaly wrong, imho. Ever since the nodal displacements got introduced you actually got an interface to do a whole slew of new things. Add DPKit to it and you get way more powerful than Maya. What I mean is... the time and effort you put into it to get the result, is far less compared to Maya. Actually, there are still issues working with vectors in Maya; I was told that there aren't any vector add node in Maya, and that, alone, is a node I use alot for the displacement work (I mix morphs, displacements, vertex caches and weightmaps in the same flow...often).

I was also told that what I do in LW can be done in Maya, but with alot more work and alot more custom coding. There are no reasons why we should move the stuff I do over to Maya, since it would require extensive developement, but not yeld better results.

You already know the level of our Maya-gurus, the OGL-based smoke and fire that we use in all our trailers, were coded by one of them. The other guy is deep into tool developement and shaderwriting. If they say that things I do are hard to transfer over to Maya, I trust them, because they are, apparently, reluctant to try to make it work.

SplineGod
06-11-2009, 02:39 AM
What made LW better for me all these years was its workflow.
What I see that workflow pop up at some point then maybe it will attract
some attention. Those companies developing those competing apps also
arent sitting on their laurels either and they actually have money as well
as successful marketing teams. :)

Red_Oddity
06-11-2009, 08:35 AM
What made LW better for me all these years was its workflow.
What I see that workflow pop up at some point then maybe it will attract
some attention. Those companies developing those competing apps also
arent sitting on their laurels either and they actually have money as well
as successful marketing teams. :)

You mean like that really big 3D software company that is doing so well it has laid off over 1500 staff members quite recently?

But you are right, they certainly aren't resting on their laurels, but if you pay close attention, you'll notice AD is currently doing what basiclly made LW such a big mess, buying up 3rd party plugins, integrate, and then forget.

Also, most of the really cool features Maya offeres are unfortunately limted to the Unlimted edition, which we can't afford for every workstation, which puts quite a dent in our overal pipeline and workflow, as not everybody can tweak Nucleus settings, Fluids or Fur (not to mention the really handy hair constraints are out of the picture aswell)

beverins
06-11-2009, 08:51 AM
Personally, having taught students both Lightwave and Maya, it is FAR FAR easier to teach Lightwave to a rank newbie with zero skills whatsoever and then bring them into Maya than to teach them Maya off the bat.

YMMV, as it is said.

animotion
06-11-2009, 10:02 AM
Keeping the LW type feel and implementing more advanced power is the way to go in my book. Consolidating it into a single ap is a big step forward in my opinion. We still have the old LW and will get bug fixes for it, so we get the best of both situations right?

There has got to be more reasons than "studios have more money" that maya is used far more than LW. I am going to keep my head out of the sand and look for LW to be supercharged with more core features.

I hope they stay away from or really limit the icons though.

Dexter2999
06-11-2009, 11:12 AM
Keeping the LW type feel and implementing more advanced power is the way to go in my book. Consolidating it into a single ap was a big step forward in my opinion. We still have the old LW and will get bug fixes for it, so we get the best of both situations right?

There has got to be more reasons than "studios have more money" that maya is used far more than LW. I am going to keep my head out of the sand and look for LW to be supercharged with more core features.

But are they keeping anything of the "LW feel"? From the videos, on the announce page it doesn't look like LW. It is a combined app, so it doesn't have the same workflow. Have they even kept the same shortcuts? From what has been said in this thread I'd say no. And think this is what Larry has been saying in part.

In Newtek's defence I guess they are more interested in growing their market share and attracting more users than appeasing their established user base. Old dogs like me who don't care to learn new tricks are way out numbered by people who want LW to be more like Maya or Modo or XSI. Users (mostly newer users) cryout for a slicker more modern looking interface. All I want in an interface is for things to be where they make the most sense because I use keyboard shortcuts for as much as I can. I couldn't care less for gradient shading in a title bar or aqua styled buttons or beveled insets on data enty boxes. None of those things make for better 3D but I will submit that they do make the experience of making 3D easier on the eyes and alot of people DO care about that even if I don't.

As for having CORE and LW and "having the best of both worlds", no. What you have is a workaround, a bottleneck in your workflow.

One of the biggest reasons Maya has been used more by major studios is the ability to do custom scripting. MEL scripting allowed more programmers more freedom than LScripting. I think adopting Python is the second major change being adopted by Newtek.

Character animation abilities is a big reason major studios use Maya as well. This area has long been a problem with LW. It seems in the past year or so I have seen some people like SplineGod and Rebelhill put out some hugely usefull information on how to really get the most power out of LW. But, LW is on it's way out and I don't know how CORE is going to handle these things.

Oh, and another reason Maya is the most used is because the studios use it. People who don't know squat about 3D have possibly heard that ILM uses Maya. So, when they go to purchase something for their company they aren't always thinking "what is best for my needs and budget?" rather they are thinking "well, this is what ILM uses and they are amazing. I'll get it too!" It doesn't matter that they are using it for archviz, or for spinny logos, or that they aren't doing any character animation or custom scripting.

Since Maya is used by studios it has a cache to it that sort of makes it the Lambourghini of 3D. Peope who have no idea what to do with it have associated it as "the best" and that is what they want. Which is really stupid but that is just how most people are. They are overlooking it is the artists and not the software that makes the great work.

I've told this story a couple of times on this board but I'll tell it again. I have been doing some spinny logo work for my company for about six years now. Four years ago, my boss tells me "We getting Maya!" I said, "Wow, Maya. Who's going to use it?" He said, "You are." So I asked, "Are you sending me to a class or buying me training? Because I don't know Maya."

So, we didn't get Maya.

On the other hand, artists contribute to Maya sales as well, I think. It is what most 3D students are learning at this point. If they go out into the world to get a job and a boss asks for their input about what to get they are going to go with what they know.

My two cents.

Nicolas Jordan
06-11-2009, 11:19 AM
What made LW better for me all these years was its workflow.
What I see that workflow pop up at some point then maybe it will attract
some attention. Those companies developing those competing apps also
arent sitting on their laurels either and they actually have money as well
as successful marketing teams. :)

I think I know what company or companies your thinking of and I don't think it's Autodesk. :D

Stooch
06-11-2009, 11:40 AM
You already know the level of our Maya-gurus, the OGL-based smoke and fire that we use in all our trailers, were coded by one of them. The other guy is deep into tool developement and shaderwriting. If they say that things I do are hard to transfer over to Maya, I trust them, because they are, apparently, reluctant to try to make it work.


first of all i dont need a perception about your lightwave experience, i have used lightwave long enough to know what it can do.

as far as your programmer friends, well they are being smart by not reinventing the wheel. I guess newtek was smart too when they grew reluctant to keep developing lw in order to match what maya can do. And i would imagine that newtek has a bit more programming resources on their side. Not only that but just beause you can do some particle stuff, doesnt translate to everything else. If there was such a compelling reason to use lw it would be the incumbent. people voted with their money. face it :) trying to keep trumpeting lightwave is a silly waste of time. CORE is the new thing, lightwave is the past...

animotion
06-11-2009, 12:27 PM
Quote by Dester2999. "As for having CORE and LW and "having the best of both worlds", no. What you have is a workaround, a bottleneck in your workflow."



You should be use to a whole lot of workarounds if you are a LW user. If you don't like core don't use it. There is always the circus. :)

Cageman
06-11-2009, 01:59 PM
first of all i dont need a perception about your lightwave experience, i have used lightwave long enough to know what it can do.

Are you really sure about that? Because I constantly find NEW stuff it can do by playing around with nodes using node item motion etc. Since you are more into Maya these days, I'm not sure how much time you spend with LW.

http://www.spinquad.com/forums/showthread.php?t=25031

A whole slew of workflow vids...very good way to get started with Node Item Motion and DPKit.



Not only that but just beause you can do some particle stuff, doesnt translate to everything else.

Am I doing particle stuff? Nopes...

Ohh..ah... you mean our Maya-gurus... well... they are very good in all technical stuff related to Maya, not limited to effects or particles.



If there was such a compelling reason to use lw it would be the incumbent.

First we have those that left LW at v8... they have little or no idea of what can be done today (except a few). Then we have the majority of LW-users who seem to not get into nodes and never fully understand what can be done with the software. Granted, one should get DPKit and Node Item Motion.



people voted with their money. face it :) trying to keep trumpeting lightwave is a silly waste of time.

Not really, since, realisticly, CORE will have to mature over time. That said, I'm one of those who pre-ordered just a couple of weeks after the reveal. So, I'm supporting NT they way I can, because I do belive that their intentions and goals with CORE are spot on.



CORE is the new thing, lightwave is the past...

CORE is certanly going in the right direction, but until it has matured to a fully fledged app, LW will still be bundled with it, so why not dig into those nodes and have some fun?

:)

IMI
06-11-2009, 02:01 PM
I really have enjoyed my years of trying to learn 3D with LW but at this point I would be hard pressed to recommend it to someone just starting out. This is an awkward time for Newtek trying to bridge from LW to CORE.

I kinda have to disagree with the first part. I would definitely recommend LW to someone just starting out, but only if he is serious about wanting to learn 3D and wants a good pro app to learn with. For one, it's not at all expensive, when you consider what else is out there, for another, the LW community is ridiculously helpful.
But also, for all it lacks when you compare it to Maya, there's still an awful lot that can be dome with it, and it alone, without the need for expensive plugins or scripting knowledge.
And it's alot more powerful than some of the other "startup" 3D software out there like, say, Carrarra.
Plus it's got an excellent render engine.

Now, if Blender were simpler, more intuitive and more n00b-friendly, I would suggest that over LW for someone just starting out. Can't beat *free* no matter what, and when "free" also is feature-rich and filled with all sorts of pro tools and has an enormous knowledgeable community attached to it too...

CORE may be a while off, but LW 9.6 is pretty good for all it CAN do, all it can be used for, right now, and well into the future. Pros will be using it still for a couple more years at least, and the 3D n00b will definitely get his money's worth. By the time CORE is up to the task, he'll know enough about 3D to either stick with LW or move on to something like Maya. LW as we know it may be dead in the water, but until CORE can completely take over, CORE will always be accompanied by a familiar LW version optimized and updated to work with it.

But then again, there's a whole lot of things that are encompassed within the world of 3D and professional 3D work. There are people who are pros who have no use whatsoever for, say, advanced CA tools, people who make a living never even having to open a graph editor. So it depends also on what someone wants to do.

If someone is into, say, arch-viz, I'd say there's no question LW is the perfect tool for that. Regardless of all the other flaws LW may have when stacked against Maya, I don't think there's much question the LW render engine is more than capable of delivering utter excellence in rendering, even if it's not going to blow anyone away with its CA tools.

Andyjaggy
06-11-2009, 02:24 PM
I just completed a project in 3D Max that would have been impossible in LW, or at the very least a major pain in the neck.

Of coarse once it came time to render the project I was wishing I was in Lightwave, but I got it done.

Dexter2999
06-11-2009, 03:45 PM
IMI-

I'm not saying LW doesn't have it's uses and I like it. I will continue to use LW for as long as it meets my needs (which are meager.) One of things I have loved is that LW has done what I need for years for little money and it leaves me cash in the budget to upgrade other parts of my system. I never had to pour cash into expensive plug ins or subscriptions. I am not bashing LW here.

I am saying that if a complete newbie was going to learn an application I wouldn't encourage them to learn something that is at it's end of life. There will not be a LW 10. CORE is a new beast altogether. If they wanted to wait for CORE to come out as a full fledged package I could encourage them to wait and learn the CORE workflow. But I can't in good conscience tell them to learn something that will quickly become obsolete.

The sentiment of CORE working with LW as being a perfect marriage isn't accurate. CORE will be able to push around many more polys than LW can at this point. Which means your modeling is going to face a sever bottle neck when you go to push your new high poly uber detailed sculpted mesh back down the pipline. I'm sure when CORE 2.0 rolls around none of this will be an issue. But RIGHT NOW this isn't a work method I would encourage a new user to learn.

And if they are learning for the purposes of getting employment, I would again ecourage Maya because they have the most job listings. This is the same reason I never tell people who want to work as an editor to learn Sony Vegas. It isn't because the application is bad. It is because professional jobs are 98% Final Cut or Avid. Put your time in learning into what will most likely gain you employment.

I agree LW has a great render engine right out of the box. But, it doesn't have a robust multipass render management system incorperated. So, you can buy one. But that argument applies to Maya as well. It's render engine may fall short, but you can buy Renderman for Maya.

If they are learning for a hobby, again I point to Blender. There is free training on YouTube that is easy to follow. And some very nice DVD's available from the Blender Foundation. I'm just dabbling in it myself now after watching BIG BUCK BUNNY.

I know it may not be coming across here but I like LW. Just not to the extent of being a "fanboy". I am very realistic about where it stands right now.

hrgiger
06-11-2009, 05:55 PM
I don't see the jump from old Lightwave to CORE being that great of a distance that I would push people away from learning LW on that basis. Just because upfront some of the hotkeys are different or navigation is a little different, how signficant is that? It is so early in development that almost nothing is final so we really don't know what CORE's UI or navigation will be like once it rolls out. It has been mentioned that CORE will be customizable and will contain interface themes. I'm sure once that goes into effect, you're going to see someone put together a 9.6 theme faster then you can say Autodesk blows(although I'm sure Newtek will do it first just to appease some of its users who complain about this particular issue).

Stooch
06-11-2009, 07:45 PM
Are you really sure about that? Because I constantly find NEW stuff it can do by playing around with nodes using node item motion etc. Since you are more into Maya these days, I'm not sure how much time you spend with LW.

i was using dponts nodes since over a year ago. back when lw was still in beta. i know what they can do. they are alright. nothing earth shattering. if anything they seem to be as an attempt to try to fill in what lw lacks when compared to maya. they dont make up for the deficiencies in the rest of the program though. I still use LW at work and at home but i always make it a point to my employers that lw to me is a dead end and is damaging to my career if im forced to only make do with it. I will use it as long as I have maya at my disposal. and if i convert a studio away from LW then all the better :)

sorry, I dont have any warm or fuzzy feelings for software, I have gotten pissed off far too many times by LW and pretty much every time i worked on any big LW project, the overall mood from my peers was of annoyance and a desire to move onto a different software. I also do alot of realflow work and quite frankly the experience and BS you have to go though with the shaders not sticking and the horrible integration with RF makes me want to stab.

no way LW is better than maya. but hey keep smoking that LW crack.

oh and one more thing. lw was always touted as a fast renderer and you know with all the nodes and dielectrics included into LW ended up increasing the quality but at the expense of speed. i would say that LW is just about on par with MR and for me its easier and faster to get good output from MR. especially the MIA shader.

you know i have had this maya vs lw argument dozens of times. at work. with coworkers. and it all boils down to this, I have taken the time to learn LW and maya and often the poeple who are arguing PRO lw are simply too lazy to truly learn maya (or too intimidated).

you just told me how I may not know LW as good as I think i do.. (whatever gave you that idea i dont know) but i can turn that around and say, how well DO YOU know maya? maybe YOU havent scratched the surface and simply dont understand that you are barking up the wrong tree ;)

Cageman
06-11-2009, 09:45 PM
i was using dponts nodes since over a year ago. back when lw was still in beta. i know what they can do. they are alright. nothing earth shattering.

If you have played with them way back when LW was in beta, you have missed out on many good improvements and new utility/displacement nodes. DPKit is constantly developed.



if anything they seem to be as an attempt to try to fill in what lw lacks when compared to maya.

Attempt? They do fill alot of holes. As I said, DPKit has evolved alot.



they dont make up for the deficiencies in the rest of the program though.

Of course they don't and I never said that, but they do add alot of functionality in areas where Maya lacks. I'm NOT saying Maya can't do it, what I am saying is; it would take alot of developement time to get to the same startposition I have when using LW.



I still use LW at work and at home but i always make it a point to my employers that lw to me is a dead end and is damaging to my career if im forced to only make do with it. I will use it as long as I have maya at my disposal. and if i convert a studio away from LW then all the better :)

How can knowledge of LW be damaging to your career? There are plenty of studios utilizing it.



sorry, I dont have any warm or fuzzy feelings for software, I have gotten pissed off far too many times by LW and pretty much every time i worked on any big LW project, the overall mood from my peers was of annoyance and a desire to move onto a different software.

No warm or fuzzy feelings for software? What about Maya then? :)

I've also seen people who are foced to use LW, but they never really understood it. The mood on those people are not fun to experience, but it boils down to knowledge, proficency and interrest in learning it. It also depends on what you are trying to use LW for; there are several areas where LW is very limiting. I'm not using LW for things I know it doesn't excell at.



I also do alot of realflow work and quite frankly the experience and BS you have to go though with the shaders not sticking and the horrible integration with RF makes me want to stab.

Never used RealFlow with LW (or any other package for that matter), but in HDRI Magazine there was an article where a studio used it with LW and they didn't seem to have the problem you had.

Also, take a good look at The Guardian (LW + RealFlow).

Article (http://fusioncis.com/userfiles/image/vfxworldNewswire2006Sept.pdf)

Q&A (http://www.vfxtalk.com/forum/vfxtalk-meets-guardian-waves-t6983.html?t=6983)



no way LW is better than maya. but hey keep smoking that LW crack.

Hehe. :) Lets just say that we clearly have very different experiences with LW and how to work with it. If LW is crap for you, so be it, but don't try to say to me (or anyone else for that matter) that I can't or shouldn't use LW, because as long as I can work independently and deliver at my job using LW, I will do so, and it doesn't really matter what you say. :)

However, what does matter is; are people new to 3D interrested in creating pretty pictures or are they interrested in digging deep down in scripting and/or code? And how much are they willing to pay for it, if not choosing Blender?

You make it sound like LW is crap (your first post in this thread), and that is, imho, not true. It IS a good starting application as well, since it has most of the tools other apps have (some are excellent and some are bad). But that goes with every app (the good and the bad).



oh and one more thing. lw was always touted as a fast renderer and you know with all the nodes and dielectrics included into LW ended up increasing the quality but at the expense of speed. i would say that LW is just about on par with MR and for me its easier and faster to get good output from MR. especially the MIA shader.

How nice for you. :) I just couldn't stomach to pay for the rendernodes, but if you want to waste your money on that, so be it. :)

But yes, we use MIA at work as well as a customized shader that outputs all kinds of renderdata into multichannel exr.



you know i have had this maya vs lw argument dozens of times. at work. with coworkers. and it all boils down to this, I have taken the time to learn LW and maya and often the poeple who are arguing PRO lw are simply too lazy to truly learn maya (or too intimidated).

If "truly learn Maya" is about MEL, then I guess I'm too lazy or too intimidated. :)

I want to work as an artist, using tools and use a node-editor that makes sense and can be overviewed with ease.



you just told me how I may not know LW as good as I think i do.. (whatever gave you that idea i dont know)

Well, you are utterly uninterrested in picking up LW, even back during the LW9.5/9.6 beta, so, my suspicion is that you aren't up to date with DPKit or the new workflows that has appeared. You were also shouting about a long-standing bug that, apparently had been fixed, and you didn't even know about it. So yes, of course I do wonder how much you use LW these days, and how much time you spend investigating the new possibilities.



maybe YOU havent scratched the surface and simply dont understand that you are barking up the wrong tree ;)

Is that supposed to mean something?

Anyhow...

I can do pretty much everything in Maya, but there are three things that holds me back;

1, The necessity to learn MEL in order to make the most out of Maya (or, as I have experienced, doing things LW does with a couple of nodes) isn't in my interrest. I simply don't have the brains for it. Many of the things I solve in LW are things that would require extensive coding or scripting in Maya to get working. We seldom have that time. The nodal workflow in LW (the look and feel of them has helped me alot btw) allows me to work very technicaly, but still as an artist. This also allows me to jump in and do technical things on a level that, once again, few seem to know LW is capable of, matching the level of quality that Maya outputs.

2, Hypershade is quite messy, and absolutely the worst node-editor out there.

3, MR for Maya is a joke in comparsion to applications like XSI or 3DS Max. It has always been and will probably always be. If you ever have done huge productions with it, you would know what I'm talking about (the stand alone version seems to be a hell of alot better). My vote goes to FinalRender or the upcomming VRay for Maya.

:)

faulknermano
06-11-2009, 10:13 PM
Bottom line is if you're looking to increase your odds of employment at a studio, get Maya, get great at what you do and furnish a killer reel.



And for practical purposes this is the bottom line: if you're looking for a job, then look for a job with the right qualifications, or your job's preferences. Or look for a job with _your_ preferences.

If you're setting up your own outfit then that's a different matter. You'd like to make a choice based on actual results, how the software behaves, its real-life strengths and limitations, which is what people assume in this thread.

There's a distinction between choosing software to get a job, and choosing to create something for your own (business, project, hobby, etc).

faulknermano
06-11-2009, 10:25 PM
oh and one more thing. lw was always touted as a fast renderer and you know with all the nodes and dielectrics included into LW ended up increasing the quality but at the expense of speed. i would say that LW is just about on par with MR and for me its easier and faster to get good output from MR. especially the MIA shader.



In my experience it has been absolute and total hell getting MR into something more productive than stills - of course, in a production environment. What I would agree on is that I may not have spent enough years in MR to fully exploit its capabilities, but what I cannot agree with at all is how it is easier or faster to get good output from MR compared to LW. If it was easier or faster, I suppose I wouldn't have the need to spend so much time on it? You must admit that MR has a pretty _steep_ learning curve. And with things like MR's slow motion blur, I think I'd rather look at other renderers like PRRM, which may prove to be more deserving of one's time.

faulknermano
06-11-2009, 10:33 PM
If "truly learn Maya" is about MEL, then I guess I'm too lazy or too intimidated. :)


If "truly learn Maya" is about MR, then I guess I'm too tired to put up with its problems in light of other better renderers around. On the other hand, if I was _forced_ to...... :)

CGI Addict
06-11-2009, 11:31 PM
And for practical purposes this is the bottom line: if you're looking for a job, then look for a job with the right qualifications, or your job's preferences. Or look for a job with _your_ preferences.

If you're setting up your own outfit then that's a different matter. You'd like to make a choice based on actual results, how the software behaves, its real-life strengths and limitations, which is what people assume in this thread.

There's a distinction between choosing software to get a job, and choosing to create something for your own (business, project, hobby, etc).

Like I said, if you're looking to work at a good studio, learn Maya to increase your odds of employment.

If you're learning to use 3D software for any other reason, of course you can learn whatever it is you prefer. The original question was what software should be learned to increase one's odds of getting employment at a studio. Maya is among the top in-demand by most studios.

Lightwave I think most everyone will have to agree is not among the top group, not that I'm happy to have to admit it. I do like using Lightwave but have also had to come to the conclusion that having Maya experience is a necessity.

IMI
06-12-2009, 02:22 AM
You must admit that MR has a pretty _steep_ learning curve. .

Damn straight it does.
In my course of using it...well, I should say *learning* it, I'm constantly having to go back to my reference material, which includes a few Digital Tutors and Gnomon Workshop videos, as well as the manual itself.
But I can't say I've actually *used* Mental Ray yet, insofar as making a setting and straight up rendering something without a whole lot of back referencing. Maybe I just have a bad memory, but the learning process doesn't seem to have an end to it. ;)

OnlineRender
06-12-2009, 03:20 AM
heres what software I NEED to know .

lw for freelance
Zbrush for organic models
Max / Maya Uk industry standard
Motion Builder - Rig and Animation

not used Modo or C4D

ohhh ye and photoshop .

Silly thread question , you could agree to dis-agree all day long .

They all show potential and improve your workflow

but if you were personnaly to ask LW is better , if i was on AD forum , my answer maybe different

Netvudu
06-12-2009, 05:50 AM
i was using dponts nodes since over a year ago. back when lw was still in beta. i know what they can do. they are alright. nothing earth shattering. if anything they seem to be as an attempt to try to fill in what lw lacks when compared to maya. they dont make up for the deficiencies in the rest of the program though. I still use LW at work and at home but i always make it a point to my employers that lw to me is a dead end and is damaging to my career if im forced to only make do with it. I will use it as long as I have maya at my disposal. and if i convert a studio away from LW then all the better :)

sorry, I dont have any warm or fuzzy feelings for software, I have gotten pissed off far too many times by LW and pretty much every time i worked on any big LW project, the overall mood from my peers was of annoyance and a desire to move onto a different software. I also do alot of realflow work and quite frankly the experience and BS you have to go though with the shaders not sticking and the horrible integration with RF makes me want to stab.

no way LW is better than maya. but hey keep smoking that LW crack.

oh and one more thing. lw was always touted as a fast renderer and you know with all the nodes and dielectrics included into LW ended up increasing the quality but at the expense of speed. i would say that LW is just about on par with MR and for me its easier and faster to get good output from MR. especially the MIA shader.

you know i have had this maya vs lw argument dozens of times. at work. with coworkers. and it all boils down to this, I have taken the time to learn LW and maya and often the poeple who are arguing PRO lw are simply too lazy to truly learn maya (or too intimidated).

you just told me how I may not know LW as good as I think i do.. (whatever gave you that idea i dont know) but i can turn that around and say, how well DO YOU know maya? maybe YOU havent scratched the surface and simply dont understand that you are barking up the wrong tree ;)

The funny thing being, I could write the exact same reply changing LW for Maya and Maya for Houdini, which I use on a daily basis.
Maya is simply an inferior software than Houdini both design-wise and workflow-wise...as every Maya user with a few months of Houdini experience will tell you. This wonīt happen many times because most Maya users have the wrong conception of using the higher end software available, which is a big marketing lie, and also a big hands-on lie.

And now repeating your statements: "you know i have had this Houdini vs Maya argument dozens of times. at work. with coworkers. and it all boils down to this, I have taken the time to learn Houdini and Maya and often the people who are arguing PRO Maya are simply too lazy to truly learn Houdini (or too intimidated).

maybe YOU havent scratched the surface and simply dont understand that you are barking up the wrong tree ;)"


Myself, I keep on using Lightwave at production, because for churning out nice stuff really fast which doesnīt involve really complex tecnhical demanding situations itīs the best thing around. Frankly, for some organic modelling or environment modelling, texture-based shading and nice lighting Lightwave ranks amongs the best thing you can use simply because EVERY 3D PACKAGE nowadays does that well enough, and Lightwave is fast fast fast.

When thing gets tough, I go for Houdini and forget about unnecessary coding, silly and slow non-procedural workflows, obsolete hypershade, weird bugs, terrible MR integration, leaving for Realflow for SPH fluids and a miriad of other stuff that makes Maya so terrible to work with unless a legion of programmers made it work properly much before you arrived.

Now, if you are looking for job opportunities, Maya is still the way to go, agred.
Just donīt get too strong on the power of Maya, because MEL is not the power of Maya, but the proof of a shameful UI.

beverins
06-12-2009, 08:40 AM
"and if i convert a studio away from LW then all the better "

I'm just the opposite, actually. I know what each program can do, and LW is the perfect addition to a pipeline. So I evangelize the program not out of being a fanboy but out of seeing its usefulness as a tool in your box.

I find that Lightwave has a very love/hate feel to its interface - if you come in hating it, you will NEVER love it no matter what. That does boil down to personality too. Some people will not use a Stanley brand hammer or a Black and Decker drill. Seriously, no jokes. They will NOT touch it, with claims that they don't work well, can't do anything with those tools. Professional carpenters. I kid you not. You can tell them the "poor craftsmen blame their tools" and then they go off on 30 minute tirades, much like the flame wars here when App War threads start up.

There isn't much I can't do with Lightwave.. and when I can't manage something, I move the stuff over to XSI or Modo and then back to LW for rendering....

As a side note (this IS an App War thread anyway, so I have to get a dig in somehow!) I always stand amazed at how primitive the Maya rendering interface is, by the way. Compared to Lightwave, 3DSMax and XSI it's a very DOS / UNIX interface that is completely unfriendly... and I'm at a loss why Autodesk doesn't revamp it. Though I do like how Maya can carry on doing whatever you're doing while you are rendering which is very nice - true multitasking.

Yes, I do find that having the little window pop up as it renders with stats all nicely formatted as to render time, and the settings and the resolution etc. to be a Necessary Thing. But I guess that's just me.

Titus
06-12-2009, 12:50 PM
Do we have a winner?

Andyjaggy
06-12-2009, 01:46 PM
Yes. Poser!

CGI Addict
06-12-2009, 02:39 PM
Pencil!

Stooch
06-12-2009, 03:37 PM
I used and loved lightwave for 14 years.

I have used and loved maya for 9 years.

I have used and loved houdini for 7 years.

to say that im just hating it is ignorant on anyones part. I am VERY well aware about what each program can and cat do. What i hate is hearing fanboy posts that dilute the truth with their personal attachment with a piece of softwware.
make no mistake, i know lots of annoying features about maya, and i WISH i could use certain apps in production such as XSI or Houdini.

FACT.

most places do not use houdini nor do they use XSI AND

NOR do they use LW.

the question that started this thread compares maya vs LW. for many reasons, not just workflow, maya is > lw.

Like i said, i dont have personal attachments to anything. IF maya got in my way as much as LW did, i would push for studios to get rid of it.

simply put, when all is said and done, that is not the case.

I dont think that I will ever be able to please a fanboy of any software in any argument simply because i do not have an attachment to any tool i use.

having said that, this is exactly why i feel that my opinion matters. because i can sit back and just say it like it is, because i have no ulterior motives.

as far as yor statement about "unnecessary coding"..

just go ahead and say it. you are uncomfortable to use a valuable and CRUCIAL tool in the CG toolset. IT IS NOT a limitation of maya. it is a limitation of YOU.

those that do use coding to their advantage, such as myself. View coding as an instrumental feature and would hate to live without it (as LW often forces you to).

so in other words, maybe some people are just not advanced enough to use maya. thats fine.

just dont blame maya for it. as far as coding. you can do just as much coding in houdini or xsi as you can in maya. THEY ARE OPTIONS.
OPTIONS THAT LW DOESNT HAVE!

that is why CORE is the future IMO.

The funny thing being, I could write the exact same reply changing LW for Maya and Maya for Houdini, which I use on a daily basis.
Maya is simply an inferior software than Houdini both design-wise and workflow-wise...as every Maya user with a few months of Houdini experience will tell you. This wonīt happen many times because most Maya users have the wrong conception of using the higher end software available, which is a big marketing lie, and also a big hands-on lie.

And now repeating your statements: "you know i have had this Houdini vs Maya argument dozens of times. at work. with coworkers. and it all boils down to this, I have taken the time to learn Houdini and Maya and often the people who are arguing PRO Maya are simply too lazy to truly learn Houdini (or too intimidated).

maybe YOU havent scratched the surface and simply dont understand that you are barking up the wrong tree ;)"


Myself, I keep on using Lightwave at production, because for churning out nice stuff really fast which doesnīt involve really complex tecnhical demanding situations itīs the best thing around. Frankly, for some organic modelling or environment modelling, texture-based shading and nice lighting Lightwave ranks amongs the best thing you can use simply because EVERY 3D PACKAGE nowadays does that well enough, and Lightwave is fast fast fast.

When thing gets tough, I go for Houdini and forget about unnecessary coding, silly and slow non-procedural workflows, obsolete hypershade, weird bugs, terrible MR integration, leaving for Realflow for SPH fluids and a miriad of other stuff that makes Maya so terrible to work with unless a legion of programmers made it work properly much before you arrived.

Now, if you are looking for job opportunities, Maya is still the way to go, agred.
Just donīt get too strong on the power of Maya, because MEL is not the power of Maya, but the proof of a shameful UI.

Stooch
06-12-2009, 03:49 PM
In my experience it has been absolute and total hell getting MR into something more productive than stills - of course, in a production environment. What I would agree on is that I may not have spent enough years in MR to fully exploit its capabilities, but what I cannot agree with at all is how it is easier or faster to get good output from MR compared to LW. If it was easier or faster, I suppose I wouldn't have the need to spend so much time on it? You must admit that MR has a pretty _steep_ learning curve. And with things like MR's slow motion blur, I think I'd rather look at other renderers like PRRM, which may prove to be more deserving of one's time.

for me MR is just as intuitive as the latest incarnation of LW nodal shaders. I have absolutely no issue using them, just like i have no issues using messiah or XSI. they are just ways to visualize connections.

every app has its quirks. I do not factor in quirks because the are a given. at the end of the day, more impressive work is done with maya. while LW is an excersize of side stepping limitations.

this is after working on many LW projects incoluding entire features. so im aware about the "speed" of lw.

is it any faster than maya??? not really.

its not the software its the artist.

Stooch
06-12-2009, 04:08 PM
I simply don't have the brains for it.
:)

Thats really all you have to say.

as far as me shouting for a bug that was fixed.. no actually i was shouting a bug that a LW TECH told me wasnt GOING to be fixed. So i just refused to keep installing beta versions when i knew that issues that i addressed were just going to be ignored.

either way, its funny taht you have to even take this argument down that path. really shows how little actual substance you have behind your argument. the old, "he doesnt like my software so I must question his abilities" approach. didnt you know thats the definition of fanboy?

yeeeaaah. dpkit is making improvements. DUH, I do own 9.6, of course i know its improving. but at the end of the day its just trying to match what maya ALREADY does and have been doing for years.

cheaper render nodes?? HAHAHAAH, of cousre. a ferrarri is cheaper then a ford. gotta love the "cheaper = better" argument. lol.

hey personally id rather get paid MORE when i get better, what about you?

Chuck
06-12-2009, 04:13 PM
Maya is not the only choice for being able to get work in a studio. LightWave and many other products are used in plenty of studios, and the work you want to do is a guide to the choices you want to make in learning software. Skills in more than one package would be a good choice, given the common presence of multiple packages, each used for their strengths, in modern production pipelines.

For more than decade and a half artists using LightWave 3D have been bringing home Emmy awards, because LightWave gets a lot of use in television effects and animation. At most times it's been the dominant package in terms of seats in that industry, and when it hasn't been at the top it has been a very close number 2. And there is a lot of work to be had there, and growing.

LightWave also gets used in film, games, advertising, etc. In the most recent industry study across all 3D segments for which I've heard results (about 3 years back, I think), of the commercial packages Max had the most seats, based largely on strength in games (and games dwarfs all other segments), and LightWave was second overall, and well ahead of Maya, which has a solid lead in the film segment but the numbers for second and third in that segment were in fact very respectable.

There is plenty of demand for good LightWave artists, and no one should be reluctant to learn it on the grounds of employability. It's not the case, and never has been.

That's enough for this thread, and enough for this kind of thread on NewTek's official support forums. These are about supporting the use of LightWave 3D, and not fair game for marketing other products in any guise, as noted in the Moderation Notice at the top of most forum sections.