View Poll Results: How important do you think it is for Lightwave to be unified?

Voters
130. You may not vote on this poll
  • Lightwave needs to be unified, and should be a huge priority moving forward.

    38 29.23%
  • It would be nice to have Lightwave unified but not a deal breaker for me.

    55 42.31%
  • Lightwave is fine the way it is with Modeler and Layout.

    37 28.46%
Page 1 of 8 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 120

Thread: Poll: Lightwave unified or not?

  1. #1

    Poll: Lightwave unified or not?

    With all the recent forum activity and discussion I thought it might be good to get a sense of how important it still is to have modeler and layout unified. Hopefully these 3 poll options cover the possibilities.
    Threadripper 2990WX, X399 MSI MEG Creation, 64GB 2400Mhz RAM, GTX 1070 Ti 8GB

    https://www.dynamicrenderings.com/

  2. #2
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Location
    MA
    Posts
    57
    Makes no difference to me. I'd happily use either version.

  3. #3
    Lava Lamp Technician 3D Kiwi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Sydney, West Island of New Zealand
    Posts
    614
    Lightwave will never reach its full potential without unification.

  4. #4
    Super Member samurai_x's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    lalaland
    Posts
    1,231
    pipe dream

  5. #5
    Remember Wade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Cypress Texas
    Posts
    1,387
    Well -
    Images still or animated in Adobe products -
    working with simple 2D pixel or vector content is like what 12 or so programs and more added as things go along. - Photoshop, Illustrator, Lightroom, add animation and premiere, on and on and on. Seems folks get along and create a lot of good content and the data is sooooo much more simple 2D rather than 3D yet that all gets broken out into a dozen different programs - in the "Creative Suite" and it more or less plays well within the suite each with the other.
    No endless issue with the user base asking for all adobe products to be integrated. And they keep adding specialty apps and it works and it makes them money and I find it useful and new people can pick it up and learn a piece at a time as needed.

    Don't know why Lightwave being two apps that do work well together ( could be better ) is such a major issue. YES layout does need modeling tools or all of modler readily accessible but good god having discreet work spaces makes a lot of sense for a lot of work.


    Not sure what I am saying here other than Adobe has huge profits lots of programs that all work with 2D images and it makes for a workable solution.
    I do like having two files - object and scene works well for me. Modeling in one and setting up in another makes sense it works - could be better. Hell it could be broken into more Apps as long as they work well together and don't limit.

    sorry for the ramblings -
    w.
    Shuttle XPCVista 64 bit /Core2Extreme x9650 3.00GHz 8GB GeForce 8800 GTS 512 Cintiq 21UX
    Dell 24" LCD Dell XT2 Tablet /Win 7 32 Bit /Core 2 duo SU9600 1.6 GHz 3GB / Mobil Intel 4500MHD

  6. #6
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    378
    I haven't voted yet. I'd rather give my opinion on the matter. If LW were unified, AFAIK it would be in position to carve out a much larger market share, and compete directly with Maya, Houdini and C4D. The reason is, it needs the ability to be able to animate points, edges and polys to be able to challenge Maya in animation, to challenge C4D in motion graphics, and Houdini in flexibility, procedural modeling. Without that ability it can never quite get up to bat in those areas. That makes it nearly impossible to get into a lot of high end pipelines.

    That does not mean it is not a great, very capable package, just that it can only get you so far in those areas. Two solid seperate apps, are better than a badly unified single app, but if they could have a modeler "workspace" within Layout, without loss of speed, it would be the best outcome.

    That said, if we could get Modeler updated with better UV tools, better undo, sculpting and retopology tools etc. I could kick unification down the line a bit, because I'm not doing a lot of mograph, or CA. For VFX and achviz, it is still an excellent tool. If they can't unify any time soon, they would also be smart to cater to game asset creation, because it also doesn't require the benefits unification brings. They would just need to do what I just said above. Improve the UV, retopo, add smoothing groups and ideally sculpting to modeler. Those should be doable. Then at least you square off well with Max and Maya for games.

    On the Layout side, they need to update the particle system unification or not. That brings up the question of whether or not the same issues that have blocked unification, have also blocked other such systems from being brought up to date. In that case the unification work may be necessary for next steps in other areas.

    In any case, I want whatever the best LW I can get is. If that is two super solid tools that work well together, or one unified tool that can do it all, I just want it to keep getting better. Just don't stand still. The worry for me, is that NT kind of underestimates what they could have with LW if they invested more in it. They look at the sales of a tool that is outdated in many areas, and think that is indicative of what they could sell no matter how much they put into it. Not realizing, that a unified app that could be a more user friendly equivalent of Maya and Houdini, with perpetual license, and priced South of C4D could be huge and grab a big piece of the market. Think about it. They would address more or less the short comings of everyone in the market.

    So unification would be logical, and should be the goal, but I won't be mad if they keep improving tools I use everyday, because it would be sad if all else was sacrificed on the alter of unification, when we could have had better tools in the meantime. Ideally a company has two teams, one working on the long term infrastructure, and the other making improvements to the current tool set. Some of the other companies do. That's where NT trying to be as lean as possible might be their own worst enemy. Falls into the "takes money to make money" thing. Can they see the value of scaling? Pre-Blender it should have been super clear. Now it is a little more muddy, but AD going subscription opened the door back up for LW. Can they step through it?

  7. #7
    Some third party developers might develop modelling tools for Layout in the future, but I don't imagine Newtek developing any.

  8. #8
    Big fan of coffee raw-m's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,339
    Would love to see some kind of modelling environment in Layout. After using 3rd Powers Paint Weights, for instance, the ease of making changes and not having to jump back to Modeller is a joy!

  9. #9
    Its the only way Lightwave will survive but will never happen because now 3 times NT has gotten rid of or had the heads of development leave that intended to bring that eventuality. Lightwave is only appealing to long time Lightwave users who have somehow convinced themselves that separate environments is somehow an advantage when just the opposite is true. Its not going to be a draw from outside without it. Anyone who has used or seen the advantages of a unified app are largely not going to come to another app with so many inherent limitations.
    Yes people use different apps in a pipeline because there are niche apps that focus on one specific thing or small set of things. But having such a split in a core DCC application is not an example of a niche application. You have modeling with no render previews, no stack based deformations or animation (proceduralism), no lighting or environment for real time asset visualization, no baking camera.... and you have an animation and layout environment with no modeling tools for creating corrective deforms, no weight painting or other vertex tools, no access to modeling components...

  10. #10
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    a place
    Posts
    1,856
    you should add p.s. buy modo to the bottom of your sig.

    just kidding! :-p

    good points.

  11. #11
    Big fan of coffee raw-m's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,339
    Ps, with Layout being an animation tool I’d like to see more focus on animation before unification. A reworked Graph Editor with ability to change temporal and spatial values would be high on my list in that regard - the GE is not a great experience at the moment. Sounds like a lot of nice workflow improvements have been added in LW2018 so remaining positive, for now! So yes to unification, but not imminently (fortunately ).

  12. #12
    World's Tallest Dwarf safetyman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Maryland, USA
    Posts
    1,343
    The major problem with two apps that I can see is that Layout gets more and more attention, while modeler grows more and more stagnant. That's fine if the plan is to move everything to Layout eventually, but if the plan is to keep two environments then it's not a good thing; the original premise was to have a dedicated modeling environment and when you were ready to texture/render/animate you would move to the final "stage". Now there's growing confusion between the two since Layout is becoming something else. You might have to change the name "Layout" to "Stage 2-3-4" or something.

    People complain about other apps "confusing" UI, but fail to see how confusing LW is becoming for new users, like hrgiger stated.

  13. #13
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    a place
    Posts
    1,856
    i think layout is the part that neeeeeds the attention. more so than modeller. we can always use modo.

  14. #14
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Barcelona, Spain
    Posts
    568
    I would like to break a spear in favor of the separation between Layout and Modeler. When I work with multiple objects in a complex scene, especially when there are instances in between, in other programs is an incordium to edit them because it updates all the instances of the edited object, making the editing very slow. With lightwave is easier because until you jump back to the Layout there is no lag in the update of the instances.

    Now, with the inclusion of the Material Preview Viewport, if it is also in Modeler, it would make the process of working with dense models much easier.

    Anyway, before carrying out the unification, it would be necessary to decide the way forward:
    1-Unification, therefore we stop improving Modeler and we include the modeling tools in Layout to gradually remove Modeler.
    2-Separate programs, which would imply a modernization of the Modeler to be on par with the Layout and the rest of the market programs, before continue to developing Layout.
    English is not my native language so please be patient.

    Salvador Ureņa
    http://urenasalvador.wixsite.com/portfolio

  15. #15
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    587
    It all depends on whether they can create and edit geometry directly in layout now, at least theoretically. If they have passed that bridge with 2018 I think they should continue along that path. Whether that means a full modeling toolset in layout or simply implement things that are by their very nature impossible in modeler (procedural geometry being the most obvious) while maintaining a separate modeling app is not really important at this stage.

    If they aren’t there yet. And layout can’t yet create geometry... I would say just continue to bolt on tools to the existing setup that mitigate the issues (like the layout camera in modeler).

    Whatever they do I want them to focus primarily on layout. Modeler is still well served by an excellent library of plugins that keep it current-ish, even if it is destructive, and it is also very easy to learn. Where-as Layout, while powerful, is a real mess and needs loads of consolidation and improvements. And of course a global undo.

Page 1 of 8 123 ... 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
  •