Page 13 of 15 FirstFirst ... 31112131415 LastLast
Results 181 to 195 of 217

Thread: Lightwave 12 and Lightwave's future

  1. #181
    Often Banned Megalodon2.0's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Midlothian, VA
    Posts
    1,029
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewis View Post
    Hmm, well obviously not every one wants Maya navigation or shortcut system BUT why not have it as option? What's wrong with more options. CORE has navigation like LW (or better, i've made my work slightly better but still LWM alike) or Maya or MAX, you can adjust/change it to whatever liking (it's not hard-coded like in LW) and shortcut system is context sensitive (you can have shortcuts inside of tools), also you can have skin/interface like Lw or any other app, you can have ICONS ONLY, TEXT only or BOTH so it really is BEST of all worlds and users decide and yet LW to this very own day (4 years later) still can't do any of that. So although CORE project did many things wrong THIS what you mention it NOT been mistake at all, it was better.

    LWavers need to stop thinking that TEXT only on buttons and LW navigation are best in world and fit all the needs. People from other apps would also disagree with that so why not give them option to make navigation as they want and by that "lure" more users to LW by giving them flexibility of navigation and shortcuts or GUI look. Nothing wrong there.
    :agree: EXCEPTIONALLY well said!

  2. #182
    Registered User octopus2000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    the future
    Posts
    247
    what if newtek allows maya, max and houdini models to be opened inside lightwave without the need to change the maps or animations or lighting or cameras. lightwave will become an essential tool for both lightwave users and non lightwave users.

  3. #183
    Quote Originally Posted by octopus2000 View Post
    what if newtek allows maya, max and houdini models to be opened inside lightwave without the need to change the maps or animations or lighting or cameras. lightwave will become an essential tool for both lightwave users and non lightwave users.
    "ALLOWS" . It's not like you just allow it or not, if is that easy we wouldn't have Alembic or any other "trying to be universal file format" need .
    RAM-Studio
    WS - Dual Xeon E5-2698v4/128GB/Win10x64/4xRTX 2080Ti
    My LWM Video Car Modeling Tutorial

  4. #184
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    desktop
    Posts
    1,290
    New unified app is easier said than done. Look at Modo. I bet the codebase is very much derived from lightwave and then added some of the same destructive toolset and you have a unified app that's as easy to model like modeller but in a "unified" environment that maya, xsi users seem to like a lot. Not many people seem to mind it doesn't have a modifier stack and working just like lightwave BUT presented in a modern gui.
    Newtek should just slowly move modelling tools in layout and slowly increase performance to handle huge datasets.

  5. #185
    Electron wrangler jwiede's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    San Jose, CA
    Posts
    6,672
    Quote Originally Posted by lightscape View Post
    I bet the codebase is very much derived from lightwave and then added some of the same destructive toolset
    You'd lose that bet. While there was some code overlap (and may still be), it's contained within individual subsystems and tool code -- the overall (Nexus-based/-generated) infrastructure is not LW-derived nor all that similar other than at a fairly gross level common across most 3D packages.

    Nexus/modo is largely COM-based, even on Mac, and if you study the modo SDK, the infrastructure differences are quite apparent, and quite significant. That's also why Viktor (LWCAD) and other plugin devs talk about how producing modo versions of LW plugins essentially requires major rewriting work -- there are fundamental differences in the way modo works versus LW, the way information is handled and passed, and so forth. It isn't just LW redone using COM, either, from the building-blocks on up the data structures, subsystems, and the services they use to interact are all quite different. Again, the easiest way to grasp the difference is to spend some time understanding the modo SDK.

    I also doubt you'll find many users of both packages who feel modo "works just like" LW, other than some nav and cmd similarities, and that both use destructive workflows in certain places.
    Last edited by jwiede; 06-30-2014 at 06:03 AM.
    John W.
    LW2015.3UB/2019.1.4 on MacPro(12C/24T/10.13.6),64GB RAM, NV 980ti

  6. #186
    Quote Originally Posted by lightscape View Post
    (...) some of the same destructive toolset and you have a unified app that's as easy to model like modeller but in a "unified" environment that maya, xsi users seem to like a lot. Not many people seem to mind it doesn't have a modifier stack and working just like lightwave BUT presented in a modern gui.
    Newtek should just slowly move modelling tools in layout and slowly increase performance to handle huge datasets.
    A - Destructive toolset, but you will have to agree that it is more interactive, so less repetition right there. Also the new Mesh Fusion feature is an example of a non-destructive solution, and that could be an approach that comes with newer tools, even though I don't think their structural tools will move in that direction. Alike Modeler they also work with polygon tags/types, materials per polygon, etc, so there's the goods and bads of that, alike LW, but at least without the split there's less problems from that being changed in 2 different places.

    B - No modifier stack, but on the other hand there's a tool stack Makes more sense, since it was though out to be a modeling application and not an animation application. In other applications there are modeling relations through operators, that allow one to have animatable modeling gimmicks and let them be part of a rig.

    C - Modeling tools in Layout... Well, I'm pretty sure it has been said before it was not possible in the current paradigm. Layout always World Space and Modeler's always Local, from what I remember. There would have to be much better support for vertices display, splines and subdivision. Also an Isolation mode and either a group or layering system, being that these last ones are needed anyway. So even all that would be a hard task, I can only imagine...

    Anyway, I think no one is now expecting LW12 to be unified; maybe some stuff will be layed out in that direction, maybe not... Honestly it's hard to touch these subjects because we simply don't know what LW will be set to be in the market.

    Cheers
    Last edited by probiner; 06-30-2014 at 07:29 AM.

  7. #187
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewis View Post
    LWavers need to stop thinking that TEXT only on buttons and LW navigation are best in world and fit all the needs. People from other apps would also disagree with that so why not give them option to make navigation as they want and by that "lure" more users to LW by giving them flexibility of navigation and shortcuts or GUI look. Nothing wrong there.
    from what i found, a mix of different methods is the fastest, here, a MockUp btw, might try to make it work using AHK...

    LW vidz   DPont donate   LightWiki   RHiggit   IKBooster   My vidz

  8. #188
    Axes grinder- Dongle #99
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    14,737
    Quote Originally Posted by jwiede View Post
    (sigh) So IT guys prefer virtual dollys, cranes, and so forth, and cinematographers prefer something else? What version of C4D are you using for reference?
    If only. What I see is that IT guys want "viewports" and weird camera targeting. (I left AE out of there because its 3d camera implementation is such an abomination I don't even consider it 3d.)

    Most recently, C4DL, but also some previous version that came w/a book...12?

    Whatever it may be, I find the LW camera the easiest and most natural to manipulate.
    They only call it 'class warfare' when we fight back.
    Praise to Buddha! #resist
    Chard's Credo-"Documentation is PART of the Interface"
    Film the cops. Always FILM THE COPS. Use this app.

  9. #189
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    desktop
    Posts
    1,290
    Quote Originally Posted by jwiede View Post
    You'd lose that bet.
    I also doubt you'll find many users of both packages who feel modo "works just like" LW, other than some nav and cmd similarities, and that both use destructive workflows in certain places.
    I said derivative.
    I work with modo artists who are also lightwave artists. I'm a lightwave artist who also uses modo. If you don't find the similarity of modelling tools, action centers, falloffs, applying weigthmaps, gui panels, little things(when nothing is selected, everything is selected)copied from lw, etc then do you think that 3dmax or maya are similar to modo, lw, too? I find 3dmax and maya vastly different when using them for work.
    Btw I'm only talking about modeller. Fx and Animation in modo have veered off to something of its own and some would say its turning into inconsistent workflow.
    I don't buy the Nexus marketting. Its like the Core marketting.


    Quote Originally Posted by probiner View Post
    A - the new Mesh Fusion feature is an example of a non-destructive solution, and that could be an approach that comes with newer tools

    B - No modifier stack, but on the other hand there's a tool stack

    C - Modeling tools in Layout... Well, I'm pretty sure it has been said before it was not possible in the current paradigm. Layout always World Space and Modeler's always Local, from what I remember

    Anyway, I think no one is now expecting LW12 to be unified; maybe some stuff will be layed out in that direction, maybe not... Honestly it's hard to touch these subjects because we simply don't know what LW will be set to be in the market.

    Cheers
    A. A perfect example that you can add powerful tools to an old architecture. Why not do the same for layout?
    B. They could have added a modifier stack but chose not to because they believed its not the direction they want to go. I'm guessing it was just too hard to implement for a small team that time.
    C. Nothing is impossible as shown how mesh fusion was integrated into modo late in the game. World space and local space? item mode, component mode in modo.

    I'm not expecting unified app for atleast 5 years where we can ditch modeller. But baby steps for modelling tools in layout are needed to be shown soon. They need to show progress if people are going to buy into it. It doesn't have to be as powerful as softimage, maya right away and get crazy with low level deformers and access to architecture, etc. They can add that later on just like what modo is doing slowly for over a decade.

  10. #190
    Quote Originally Posted by lightscape View Post
    A. A perfect example that you can add powerful tools to an old architecture. Why not do the same for layout?
    B. They could have added a modifier stack but chose not to because they believed its not the direction they want to go. I'm guessing it was just too hard to implement for a small team that time.
    C. Nothing is impossible as shown how mesh fusion was integrated into modo late in the game. World space and local space? item mode, component mode in modo.
    A - You mean a feature, that it's supported already in their current system, aka the meshing. Do you have highlights of the ins and out of Mesh Fusion within Modo?
    B - Of course, but now they want to do animation and a stack can be very important in that case.
    C - Again Mesh Fusion is no example, since that app is alread unified and the proceduralism is done through nodes. Yes, but Modo already has those modes, like Blender, like Maya, like Max, not LW.

    Cheers
    Last edited by probiner; 06-30-2014 at 05:50 PM.

  11. #191
    Pleased to meet you. Oedo 808's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,558
    Quote Originally Posted by Probiner
    I don't think anyone said it in that way, if you look back you'll see that was a questioning of "Lightwaviness".
    I think people did say it in that way, but perhaps just an obtuse way of saying a feature needs a UI element. To the question of LightWaviness, putting out round text buttons is a bit reaching as an example, if I put together the UIs from 7, 11.6 and Core and said to pick the odd one out, I think the round buttons wouldn't set themselves quite so far apart. But yes, the appearance, the clean, compact, icon free buttons are a part of Lightwaviness. Now you might say, "Oh but Core had classic UIs and people made their own" well yes it did and yes they did, but my concern is that when I came to LightWave I had the option, as many of us did or still do of choosing any application, but it was LightWave I went for and the appearance was part of that, despite having a well versed Max user ready to call on. Perhaps I might have chosen differently had I known certain limitations, but to me the early impression of LightWave was a plus and something I didn't want to see lost. Are you seriously trying to tell me sentiments like that brought the development of Core grinding to a halt? I don't see what is achieved by slavishly trying to ape everything else from a more successful program, as if that alone is a recipe for success. Want something changed? By all means, just quantify it with an example other than just some vague notion that change is needed.

    You are right though, when we have a new feature we often do have a new UI element to utilize, I was to going to say precisely this, I don't think anyone is disputing such. Like TFD for example, you open TFD and it's both a new feature with a UI and it's... LightWavey, and while many floating windows are annoying, I prefer having the TFD window to the integrated navigating I've seen in C4D (although there are elements like the cache list I like, but this isn't C4D UI-style dependant). LightWave can be a little like having your clothes strewn all over the bedroom but other programs can feel like constantly having to dig down to the bottom of a tall wash basket for something. Of course dockable windows could certainly help with that depending on the implementation, but is there really any opposition here? Perhaps people who object will step forward so we can get a handle on exactly what opposition there is. You spoke of not being able to get a grasp on something not clearly described, well I feel the resistance to change has been taken and regurgitated with artistic license because of moping about Core being killed off, if people wanted that LightWave be familiar, then that isn't wholesale obstruction, as if Core died because the community was immoveable on the issue of change, total bollocks as far as I'm concerned. A lot of what I saw people objecting to I didn't like myself, yet I know my position still leaves a great deal of room for change to be made.

    And if some have no need for animated modelling tools, why shouldn't they fear a UI where things are neat and tidy but too far buried? Not that unification is optional to me, barring some marvellous new workflow, but people who don't need it are still quite entitled to their opinions, opinions which might influence even more clearly defined workspaces or perhaps the LWG could even envisage a benefit to continuing a studio and modeller app as an aside, who knows. The point is, people are entitled to offer their opinion and it's up to the LWG to pick up on the merits of the arguments. Speaking of that which is hard to grasp, I've heard a lot more about where the current set up falls down than I have seen clear examples of it, perhaps if the most convincing thing people have to offer wasn't little more than "change is gud" then they could be less worried that their concerns may not be taken seriously. Not to mention people who don't experience the downside might be more sympathetic.

    As opposed to what LightWave is, I'll tell you what LightWave isn't to me, and that's the constant and unnecessary pecking of values into the numeric fields, if I wanted to see that sort of thing I'd buy a chicken and throw some grain onto my keyboard, not to mention driving the cursor to some gizmo every time you want to make an adjustment, that's what I fear, I see that crap all the time by others and it drives me nuts. To me LightWave shows the promise of a very tactile modeller, it may not sound like much but I certainly feel the difference when I use something like Unity's gizmo and that's just for item placement let alone modelling. The new Transform tool in Modeler already works like that (as in without viewport manipulation), now I don't want to be unfair because it is a multi function tool but it has me concerned, is that what a new unified LightWave transform would be like? Likewise if divisions are added to Chamfer and Rounder is phased out are we going to lose viewport control of working the tool? Voicing concerns about things like that would not be being afraid change just because it's different. Much like Matt voicing his concern at the way the viewport rotation had changed back with Core. Regarding that, doesn't Modo have a similar feel? I'm sure someone mentioned back then that Brad Peebler encouraged new users to stick with it.

    I don't care for the numeric panel at all, I know some people have it open constantly and I see people pecking in "10mm, maybe 15mm, let's try 20" what the ****? If there's no need for round numbers and you aren't following measurements, why do that? Makes no sense. Sometimes it is a necessity, but certainly I don't find it overwhelmingly so for myself. Take a look at ZBrush, how many fantastic and varied models, even hard-surface ones do you see with people getting anal over the minute measurements? Like I've said before I try to model in the perspective view and keep the plan views stacked at the side, I don't need things being redesigned with unnecessary UI usage in mind because for one I worry that it will overshadow the direction I would like it to be going which is in an expansion on viewport-space tool manipulation and hopefully mouse/pen gestures, and secondly it simply takes away the way I like to work. If what could essentially be said to be "Hey, this needs to be more like LightWave" how the **** is that a call for an end to unification, the dismissal of having a history stack and the banning of something like dockable windows?

    Core's UI didn't just happen, someone thought it was a good idea for the unveiling of the new version of LightWave, and it's no use saying it wasn't finished or that it could be changed because you can equally say that people were offering their opinion of what they wanted to see when it was finished, what's wrong with that?

    I didn't see that Core had anywhere near enough in it for people to even think of complaining about unification.

    You see it's not an easy thing to talk about...
    Well it can be difficult to talk about, look at the all ******* typing you just made me do and it probably doesn't scratch the surface of what I would want to try an impart without trying to cover things sufficently that I don't have to type another wall of text, I've had enough of doing "Boohoo, Core " responses. I remember Intuition had some good videos on what we could take inspiration from but that's when there was some sort of pretence of them engaging users with Hardcore, that facade faded soon enough and without any such engagement I find my enthusiasm to add much in that regard quite low, much to the LWG's relief I'm sure.

    Hence I focus on "what I think is missing" rather than "how it will be done".
    I can't agree to that, not least because of how important a first implementation is and how a poor 'could be better' implementation will be left and overlooked time and again over the subsequent versions with the never ending need for new developments taking priority, but I've said enough, for now. Just don't forget to stop and think about what isn't missing, you might just find that there's a reason you are here posting as a LightWave user, wouldn't that be something. If you can't, maybe you should question whether your time might be better spent trying to shape an application you already do have a liking for.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lewis
    LWavers need to stop thinking that TEXT only on buttons and LW navigation are best in world
    No they don't, because it is

    and fit all the needs. People from other apps would also disagree with that so why not give them option to make navigation as they want and by that "lure" more users to LW by giving them flexibility of navigation and shortcuts or GUI look. Nothing wrong there.
    More seriously, this is very true, as I remember it there was the suggestion that Core have a splash screen like... was it Blender? So people could switch it to their preferred method? Maybe there was the suggestion that it would be better available from a list so they might at least try it out 'as is' first and see if that suited them any better. It's difficult to remember after all this time, I'd rather people stuck to making suggestions and dealing with objections in the present rather than digging out the old Hardcore chat and sentiment just so they can play us a miserable tune on their violin and mourn Core, again.

    There will always be people resistant to just about anything when it comes to software, if there weren't I'd expect the universe to implode, if that's a surprise to anyone, more fool them.
    Sentenced to 310 years for crimes against modelling and rendering.

  12. #192
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    desktop
    Posts
    1,290
    Quote Originally Posted by probiner View Post
    A - You mean a feature, that it's supported already in their current system, aka the meshing. Do you have highlights of the ins and out of Mesh Fusion within Modo?
    B - Of course, but now they want to do animation and a stack can be very important in that case.
    C - Again Mesh Fusion is no example, since that app is alread unified and the proceduralism is done through nodes. Yes, but Modo already has those modes, like Blender, like Maya, like Max, not LW.

    Cheers
    A. A feature they had to expand the modo code to make mesh fusion work. There are many videos showing what mesh fusion can do on the net.
    B. Yep they are adding what people would consider "architecture" features late in the game. Its doable, its code. What's important for users is how it will be implemented as a workflow. Just like the new nodes in modo. Just like the new node system in 3dmax.
    C. It is an example how a non-destructive modelling paradigm can be fusioned with a destructive modelling workflow that Modo has. If that is not an indication of how its possible to put new tech into old tech then what's your example of retooling software? Maya and 3dmax have retooled with new technology from time to time. Its code. So why not retool layout slowly moving modelling into it?

    All the above are related to retooling instead of rebuilding from scratch which is much much harder to do. Its just a matter of resources. Does newtek have resources they WANT to allocate to lightwave? Did Lux have it, no they didn't and they sold modo to the Foundry because they are expanding the featureset which a small team couldn't possible do without working 24/7 and impossible man hours.
    Last edited by lightscape; 06-30-2014 at 10:58 PM.

  13. #193
    Adapting Artist jasonwestmas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    11,399
    Quote Originally Posted by lightscape View Post
    So why not retool layout slowly moving modelling into it?

    All the above are related to retooling instead of rebuilding from scratch which is much much harder to do. Its just a matter of resources. Does newtek have resources they WANT to allocate to lightwave? Did Lux have it, no they didn't and they sold modo to the Foundry because they are expanding the featureset which a small team couldn't possible do without working 24/7 and impossible man hours.
    Apparently NT doesn't have the resources to bring modeling tools into layout at all. If it's all just code, it's a lot of code to modify even in a modular fashion. We always seem to get the "unforeseen complications" excuse. NT doesn't know how to spend resources to get big things done. But kudos to them for at least trying a few times.
    All that is powerful or long standing is first conceived in the imagination; supported by the hope of possibility and then made manifest in our commitment of our current physical reality.

  14. #194

    Oedo 808
    I remember Intuition had some good videos on what we could take inspiration from but that's when there was some sort of pretence of them engaging users with Hardcore, that facade faded soon enough and without any such engagement I find my enthusiasm to add much in that regard quite low, much to the LWG's relief I'm sure.
    i've had a look through those vidz this week, taking notes on what LightWave could learn from them.

    but i'm happy to say, several of those features have been added or started...

    there are still some important ones to add though, such as making some Polygon Islands -like features...

    LW vidz   DPont donate   LightWiki   RHiggit   IKBooster   My vidz

  15. #195
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewis View Post
    Hmm, well obviously not every one wants Maya navigation or shortcut system BUT why not have it as option? What's wrong with more options. CORE has navigation like LW (or better, i've made my work slightly better but still LWM alike) or Maya or MAX, you can adjust/change it to whatever liking (it's not hard-coded like in LW) and shortcut system is context sensitive (you can have shortcuts inside of tools), also you can have skin/interface like Lw or any other app, you can have ICONS ONLY, TEXT only or BOTH so it really is BEST of all worlds and users decide and yet LW to this very own day (4 years later) still can't do any of that. So although CORE project did many things wrong THIS what you mention it NOT been mistake at all, it was better.

    LWavers need to stop thinking that TEXT only on buttons and LW navigation are best in world and fit all the needs. People from other apps would also disagree with that so why not give them option to make navigation as they want and by that "lure" more users to LW by giving them flexibility of navigation and shortcuts or GUI look. Nothing wrong there.
    quoted for agreement...i use several apps and would like the "option" to choose a viewport navigation of my own choosing..just like i have in modo where i do NOT use modo's crappy nav but use 3ds max nav...and in blender where i don't use blender's default nutcase nav...but 3dsmax nav..and in lightwave i'd like the option to choose...sure KEEP lightwave nav..but add other standard navigation systems like maya and 3ds max...that way people demoing lightwave can jump straight in from maya or max and have some FUN and maybe...just maybe with ease of use could ADD a seat of lightwave...if you want to ADD a level of frustration for artists tryign out your software for the first time then yeh..stick with lightwave only nav...great well done...duh.
    stee+cat
    real name: steve gilbert
    http://www.cresshead.com/

    Q - How many polys?
    A - All of them!

Page 13 of 15 FirstFirst ... 31112131415 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •