Page 8 of 11 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... LastLast
Results 106 to 120 of 151

Thread: What market should LW be concentrating from now on? Tell us your ideas.

  1. #106
    Super Member Kryslin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Prescott, IA
    Posts
    1,520
    I moved here from Maya and Rhino3d...

    While I like Rhino's accuracy, Lightwave is relatively simple in comparison, and quicker to set up things and get good results.
    Maya is like scaling a vertical cliff face, no safety lines. Industry "standard" and all that, and a bear to use (2008 & 2009 did not play nice with my system at the time).
    --------
    My Scripts for Lightwave
    Intel Core i7 960 @3.20 Ghz, 24 GB ram, EVGA 6GB GTX980Ti "Classified" driving 2 x HP LA2405.

  2. #107
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    586
    Quote Originally Posted by gar26lw View Post
    has anyone here moved over to a unified app but then moved back?
    i have in 2015 but that was for render speed and ease of setups. no animation was needed.
    I did a pretty long project in blender, and while it had some real advantages primarily due to the unified environment, I wound up returning to lightwave for the next project simply because on balance I prefer using it, warts and all. Every app has its limitations and idiosyncrasies. The modeler/ layout split is just one of those.

  3. #108
    Quote Originally Posted by Marander View Post
    I don't see why a split app helps with that or has any advantage over a unified environment.

    Certainly a task that can be done in LW without limitations I agree.

    However not having a unified environment or procedural workflow can make certain (repeating) tasks or design tedious.

    You might want to create your furniture using procedural deformers (bend, shear, twist etc.) - which are not visible or usable in Modeler, procedural modeling falloffs, parametric mirroring / symmetry (model only half or a quarter of the object), use parametric splines / lofts / sweeps, extrudes etc., the ability to change edge profiles or bevels later, adding procedural displacements, having several "takes" with different material or shape variations in the scene, arranging along other objects / parts, parametric instances or clones of parts, non-destructive / live booleans, create procedural assets (think of furniture objects where you can change measures or other parameters with sliders and input fields), cloth / fur (carpets, fabrics) simulation, openVDB / voxel modeling, having different perspectives / cameras, creating procedural assembly animations...

    ...without syncing objects between apps while keeping the geometry / objects parametric and having the object in the correct place in the scene.

    In my opinion using splines and other parametric objects can be more efficient than creating static geometry in Modeler.
    Some good points for sure, but that still does not require a unified app. I am for unification of the two, but its not a deal breaker for what me and my team members do.
    Tim Parsons
    Technical Designer
    Sauder Woodworking Co.

    http://www.sauder.com

  4. #109
    Registered User jbrookes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Unknown
    Posts
    212
    Film and Television. There are so many components of LW that are well-tailored to that market. No reason to abandon that sector.
    Favorite Waves: LW3.5, 5.6c, 7.5, 8.5, 9.6, 2015.

  5. #110
    They need to focus on their strengths, Modeling and Rendering.

    Wasn't Viper like the 1st interactive renderer in the Industry?
    I'm not sure but I think so.

    I also think VPR came out 1st too and then everyone else came
    up with similar tech. I could be wrong about this too.

    And even tho its outdated, I still like modeling in Lightwave.

    I still the think the goal should be Infiltration into the mainstream.
    No large studio will just stop using what they know works for them,
    but they'll always try and save a dollar.

    Generalist Apps are done I think. Like, whats the point in trying to
    create sculpting tools in Lightwave, the Bar is already too high with
    apps like ZBrush and 3Dcoat.

    And if your thinking, "well not everyone can afford ZBrush and other Apps".
    I'd say, One man teams should not be competing with Studio Quality.

    Need to focus on their Strengths.

    But before all that, We need a flexible Modern UI.

  6. #111
    Registered User Rayek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    1,458
    @VonBon

    Modeling hasn't been Lightwave's strength for a very long time now, and it is lagging (far) behind all other main 3d packages.
    Sculpting is an integral part of all competitors (except Max, I believe), and having the option to sculpt (outside of dedicated apps like 3dCoat and zBrush) is that it is extra-ordinarily handy for all sorts of modeling jobs. Often there is just no need to rely on a powerhouse like zBrush. No need to switch software, just sculpt away in your DCC 3d generalist app, and done. Super handy. In a unified app, of course.

    No, a good sculpting mode or tool set is part of a common modeling toolset now. I use it all the time for small jobs where other approaches are too slow or inefficient. If Lightwave hopes to compete in terms of modeling ever again, it will need to be integrated somehow. They already have Chronosculpt. They have the tech. But the LW dev team either hasn't had time to integrate it, or management decided it is not worth the effort at this point for some reason.

    I do agree television and broadcast VFX seems to vibe well with Lightwave. Perhaps Newtek should just focus on Layout alone from now on (which they have pretty much done anyway in the past decade or longer). But that would probably drive LW users to other packages. So modeling needs a heavy update. A considerable one.

    In the end these discussions always seem to steer us to one best solution: unification. Just unify the damn app. Focus on broadcast graphics/VFX. Make modeling non-destructive. Add something like a Mograph derivative. Leech unhappy C4D users - C4D is way too expensive for many.

    PS and rendering needs a GPU option to be viewed again as a major strength in Lightwave.
    Win10 64 - i7 [email protected], p6t Deluxe v1, 48gb, Nvidia GTX 1080 8GB, Revodrive X2 240gb, e-mu 1820. Screens: 2 x Samsung s27a850ds 2560x1440, HP 1920x1200 in portrait mode

  7. #112
    Super Member vncnt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Amsterdam
    Posts
    1,574
    Quote Originally Posted by Rayek View Post
    ...
    PS and rendering needs a GPU option to be viewed again as a major strength in Lightwave.
    Maybe not exactly what you're asking for, but I would be happy if NT would enhance the OpenGL Preview rendering:

    step 1 - Make the Preview rendering screensize/aspect resistant so that it doesn't mess up the output file (diagonal distortion).
    step 2 - Add settings for resolution, non-YUV codecs, image export, and a single checkbox to remove all screen elements that do not belong in the output.
    step 3 - Export the transparency channel.
    Last edited by vncnt; 03-20-2019 at 04:54 AM.

  8. #113
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    a place
    Posts
    1,844
    i think id like the old renderer added in with pbr shaders.

  9. #114
    Quote Originally Posted by VonBon View Post
    They need to focus on their strengths, Modeling and Rendering.

    Really? Modeling? Have you seen what else is out there?

    And rendering used to be LightWave's strength. But there are too many great third party rendering solutions except to those who may be on a budget who want an all in one tool.

  10. #115
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    a place
    Posts
    1,844
    Quote Originally Posted by hrgiger View Post
    Really? Modeling? Have you seen what else is out there?

    And rendering used to be LightWave's strength. But there are too many great third party rendering solutions except to those who may be on a budget who want an all in one tool.
    I think fast, fast, fast is what it needs. simple yet effective, with nodal complexity in the background, if needed. I think a thread on how to achieve fast workflow would be a good topic..

    here's one

    https://forums.newtek.com/showthread...36#post1567336

  11. #116
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Right here
    Posts
    1,535
    Quote Originally Posted by Rayek View Post
    @VonBon

    Modeling hasn't been Lightwave's strength for a very long time now, and it is lagging (far) behind all other main 3d packages.
    Sculpting is an integral part of all competitors (except Max, I believe), and having the option to sculpt (outside of dedicated apps like 3dCoat and zBrush) is that it is extra-ordinarily handy for all sorts of modeling jobs. Often there is just no need to rely on a powerhouse like zBrush. No need to switch software, just sculpt away in your DCC 3d generalist app, and done. Super handy. In a unified app, of course.

    No, a good sculpting mode or tool set is part of a common modeling toolset now. I use it all the time for small jobs where other approaches are too slow or inefficient. If Lightwave hopes to compete in terms of modeling ever again, it will need to be integrated somehow. They already have Chronosculpt. They have the tech. But the LW dev team either hasn't had time to integrate it, or management decided it is not worth the effort at this point for some reason.

    I do agree television and broadcast VFX seems to vibe well with Lightwave. Perhaps Newtek should just focus on Layout alone from now on (which they have pretty much done anyway in the past decade or longer). But that would probably drive LW users to other packages. So modeling needs a heavy update. A considerable one.

    In the end these discussions always seem to steer us to one best solution: unification. Just unify the damn app. Focus on broadcast graphics/VFX. Make modeling non-destructive. Add something like a Mograph derivative. Leech unhappy C4D users - C4D is way too expensive for many.

    PS and rendering needs a GPU option to be viewed again as a major strength in Lightwave.
    I agree to parts (specially focus on Layout only) but MoGraph I would say forget it. The C4D MoGraph Module was introduced 13 years ago and has constantly been improved every year since then. I cannot imagine Cinema users even with old versions want move from this unified, stable and easy-to-use system to LightWave. Instead some more technical users seem to add Houdini to their toolset and can use the integrated Houdini Engine, some consider Blender 2.8 because of Eevee and the updated UI.

    If NewTek manages to finally make the UI and UX more user friendly (specially for new users), including optional industry standard navigation, new users from all areas might add LightWave if it offers unique features for VFX or character animation for example.

    LW 2019 seems to be a good start with improved Undo, openVDB, procedural / nodal animation and displacement, as well as the new 2018+ render engine but even these new features still lack behind other implementations.

    What it needs is something really unique in my opinion to stand out but MoGraph seems impossible for me.

    A good example is the Unreal Engine integration. Others have it too but I think LW's is done best currently.
    Last edited by Marander; 03-20-2019 at 07:33 AM.

  12. #117
    Explorer souzou's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    423
    I'd say if there is any gap in the market at the moment, it's as an easy bridge to realtime. There seems to be a need for that in arch-vis & tv at least, VR/AR, plus of course it makes things easier for games production. If you can become known as the go-to app for that I think you can build from that niche.

    Improved UI and UX (eg. dockable panels), better geo performance, easier character animation tools/workflows would really help.
    Matt Knott / VERSUS
    http://www.versus.nu

  13. #118
    The point I was trying to make is that I believe,
    the Dev Team could design these things better
    than the competition if they focused on them.

  14. #119
    As for the Sculpting, just about every Studio is using an App
    designed for sculpting, mainly ZBrush. Why waste the resources,
    when they could be used in other areas. The Goal is to get more
    Studios using LightWave, to possibly get more Artist making stuff
    with LightWave and making more money to have access to more
    resources to expand the program.

  15. #120
    Dreamer Ztreem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,136
    You can also say it like this.
    Just about every studio is using an app designed for modeling, mainly other apps than LW.
    Just about every studio is using an app designed for animation, mainly other apps than LW.
    Just about every studio is using an app designed for rendering, mainly other apps than LW.
    Why waste the resources?

Page 8 of 11 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... 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
  •