Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 58

Thread: In the need of a few good Betatesters.

  1. #31
    RETROGRADER prometheus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    sweden stockholm
    Posts
    15,345
    Quote Originally Posted by Ztreem View Post
    Ok, I'm not following what you want. But good for you that the structure in Lw is perfect, just keep using it and do awesome art.
    Lol, if I didnīt know better, my first instinct would be to interprete this comment as a bit of mocking irony, but I am sure you do not mean to offend me anyway..and I do not take offense anyway.
    The comment could of course be completely honest without such intent, that I can not judge upon.

    But putting words in my mouth that the Lw structure is perfect, or the way you project that I would think so...That is not the case and not what I have said.
    In fact, what you showed may be a future way for me to work with blender, but currently right now I do not think itīs how I would want the UI setup.
    Keep in mind though, you both have these new panels you made, together with the outliner..which makes no sense to have camera options on both places making it taking up more space..granted, you could of course change the outliner to be non active and use something else in that window ..like nodes etc.

    Personally I feel that by default... the lw UI is better structured/organised and allow for structuring your tools in places exactly where you want by adding your own menu buttons exactly where you want them, which I find seem to be harder in blender, but maybe I am not that well versed yet in configuring the blender UI, that can of course be the case.

    But blender is at a much higher level of flexibility when it comes to changing colors in wireframe, UI and rescaling windows..without even having to close the program.

    One of the annoyancies I have with blender though.... that is the object wireframing, I constantly have to jump in and scroll and activate or deactivate it, while I find it easier to just choose wireframe or textured wireframe in respective viewport in Lightwave, that is something I can not do...or do not know how to do in blender.
    Of course the many years of working with Lightwave and how it is setup makes an impact on how I feel about another way of doing it, will see in time wether or not I would
    agree on the case of setting up blenders UI similar as you did, would be any better.

    Guess that is enough about that to clarify the latest post and I would urge for the postings to go back to more on topic stuff.

    Edit..as to clarify, when you have those windows set up with all cameras and lights, on the verticl length, that is requiring more space taken from the viewport, rather if you had them
    set up as only showing one camera, you could probably adjust the windows to only have that scale to show only one camera, and the same with Lights etc..so flexibility is a good thing.

    One thing that annoys me most with the LightwaveUI interface ..that is the case of not being able to select all channels and edit uniformly, as you do in blender by selecting with mouse drag on all axis and drag or enter one value, in lightwave..you enter the same value three times unfortunately.
    Matt said it required some component to be added before that could be adressed.

  2. #32
    Dreamer Ztreem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,147
    Quote Originally Posted by prometheus View Post
    Lol, if I didnīt know better, my first instinct would be to interprete this comment as a bit of mocking irony, but I am sure you do not mean to offend me anyway..and I do not take offense anyway.
    The comment could of course be completely honest without such intent, that I can not judge upon.

    But putting words in my mouth that the Lw structure is perfect, or the way you project that I would think so...That is not the case and not what I have said.
    In fact, what you showed may be a future way for me to work with blender, but currently right now I do not think itīs how I would want the UI setup.
    Keep in mind though, you both have these new panels you made, together with the outliner..which makes no sense to have camera options on both places making it taking up more space..granted, you could of course change the outliner to be non active and use something else in that window ..like nodes etc.

    Personally I feel that by default... the lw UI is better structured/organised and allow for structuring your tools in places exactly where you want by adding your own menu buttons exactly where you want them, which I find seem to be harder in blender, but maybe I am not that well versed yet in configuring the blender UI, that can of course be the case.

    But blender is at a much higher level of flexibility when it comes to changing colors in wireframe, UI and rescaling windows..without even having to close the program.

    One of the annoyancies I have with blender though.... that is the object wireframing, I constantly have to jump in and scroll and activate or deactivate it, while I find it easier to just choose wireframe or textured wireframe in respective viewport in Lightwave, that is something I can not do...or do not know how to do in blender.
    Of course the many years of working with Lightwave and how it is setup makes an impact on how I feel about another way of doing it, will see in time wether or not I would
    agree on the case of setting up blenders UI similar as you did, would be any better.

    Guess that is enough about that to clarify the latest post and I would urge for the postings to go back to more on topic stuff.

    Edit..as to clarify, when you have those windows set up with all cameras and lights, on the verticl length, that is requiring more space taken from the viewport, rather if you had them
    set up as only showing one camera, you could probably adjust the windows to only have that scale to show only one camera, and the same with Lights etc..so flexibility is a good thing.

    One thing that annoys me most with the LightwaveUI interface ..that is the case of not being able to select all channels and edit uniformly, as you do in blender by selecting with mouse drag on all axis and drag or enter one value, in lightwave..you enter the same value three times unfortunately.
    Matt said it required some component to be added before that could be adressed.
    I only did this as quick mockup to show that its possible to have access to just cameras or lights. You can also have both in the same list. You can of course have the list shorter so it only shows one camera at the time, you can also have it in different places, I put it there to resemble LW a little. I would never use this setup myself as I adopted the way Blender works and I feel that most workflows that felt strange in the beginning is actyally superior to those in LW.
    Isn’t wireframe mode just a click of a button in Blender?

  3. #33
    RETROGRADER prometheus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    sweden stockholm
    Posts
    15,345
    Quote Originally Posted by Ztreem View Post
    You can of course have the list shorter so it only shows one camera at the time,
    Isn’t wireframe mode just a click of a button in Blender?
    "You can of course have the list shorter so it only shows one camera at the time" That is what I said in the previous post to make sure I did understand that.

    Click of a button? how so..shortcut you mean?

    You need to look for an icon, click on it, scroll down to the right menu(messy with the other menus to deal with as well), check wireframe and often all edges (two buttons) and itīs not a per viewport attribute, it will show in all viewports whatever yous et in the object wireframe settings...I find it by far more tedious in blender to mess with a per object wireframing than simply choose what to show in respective viewport, that said..there may be situations where a per object wireframe would be more ideal since you can use several display modes per object in one viewport, though I havenīt come across that need myself.

    In short the wireframe display in blender is focused on a per object case ..meaning every object you add needs to go through the process of having to be set up, while a per viewport case means you do not have to for anykind of object, you just make sure you initially have your desired viewport display.

    Lightwave has alway felt more easy to use in many cases such as this, or getting a backdrop to work ..go to a simply properly named tab called backdrop and add your sky or environment, with blender you have world display (icon) and you need to "Know" that there is a little dot in the color channel you need to right click on and add a sky texture from that...not very initiuve, much in blender is..You need to know by researching rather than looking at a button that tells you what it does.

    That said, some of the new Lw stuff has made the workflow become more hidden as well in Lightwave compared to 2015.

  4. #34
    Registered User Rayek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    1,468
    Quote Originally Posted by prometheus View Post
    "

    Click of a button? how so..shortcut you mean?

    You need to look for an icon, click on it, scroll down to the right menu(messy with the other menus to deal with as well), check wireframe and often all edges (two buttons) and itīs not a per viewport attribute, it will show in all viewports whatever yous et in the object wireframe settings...I find it by far more tedious in blender to mess with a per object wireframing than simply choose what to show in respective viewport, that said..there may be situations where a per object wireframe would be more ideal since you can use several display modes per object in one viewport, though I havenīt come across that need myself.

    In short the wireframe display in blender is focused on a per object case ..meaning every object you add needs to go through the process of having to be set up, while a per viewport case means you do not have to for anykind of object, you just make sure you initially have your desired viewport display.
    No, that's not right: just either activate wireframe mode in a viewport, or turn on wires in the overlay menu (which is two clicks). Then pick additional settings in the viewport shading properties to set up the view as you like.

    It is, for example, possible to have a solid flat view with wires and shadows. Or an Eevee viewport with wires. Or a solid view with with x-ray wires and a matcap of your choice. And each viewport may have its own settings, of course.

    And yes, aside from these settings, it is also possible to control the wireframe settings on a per-object basis.

    Far more configurable than Lightwave's viewports, that is for sure.
    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

  5. #35
    RETROGRADER prometheus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    sweden stockholm
    Posts
    15,345
    Quote Originally Posted by Rayek View Post
    No, that's not right: just either activate wireframe mode in a viewport, or turn on wires in the overlay menu (which is two clicks). Then pick additional settings in the viewport shading properties to set up the view as you like.

    It is, for example, possible to have a solid flat view with wires and shadows. Or an Eevee viewport with wires. Or a solid view with with x-ray wires and a matcap of your choice. And each viewport may have its own settings, of course.

    And yes, aside from these settings, it is also possible to control the wireframe settings on a per-object basis.

    Far more configurable than Lightwave's viewports, that is for sure.
    I say No you are not entirely correct at least not when working with 2.79 as a more solid build, and I should have mentioned that I ment the wireframe in solid mode.

    ...I do not use 2.8 Eevee that much yet.
    The 2.7 viewports only has wireframe and solid, not both at the same time as the kind of solid with wireframe option that is needed as we have in lightwave.

    So do you mean 2.7 is able to have a solid wire viewport?..without actually entering the objects properties and set the objects display mode? in such case I have missed that and you need to show me how to.

    or do you mean that 2.8 now has improved that option?
    the options in the viewport for 2.7 is otherwise bounding box, wireframe, solid, texture, material and rendered...not any solidwireframe mode.

    Edited..yes..2.8 with overlay on solid you can activate geometry, but I do not see what you say to be true for 2.7

  6. #36
    Dreamer Ztreem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,147
    Quote Originally Posted by prometheus View Post
    I say No you are not correct at least not when working with 2.79 as a more solid build

    ...I do not use 2.8 Eevee that much yet.
    The 2.7 viewports only has wireframe and solid, not both at the same time as the kind of solid with wireframe option that is needed as we have in lightwave.

    So do you mean 2.7 is able to have a solid wire viewport?..without actually entering the objects properties and set the objects display mode? in such case I have missed that and you need to show me how to.

    or do you mean that 2.8 now has improved that option?
    the options in the viewport for 2.7 is otherwise bounding box, wireframe, solid, texture, material and rendered...not any solidwireframe mode.

    Edited..yes..2.8 with overlay on solid you can activate geometry, but I do not see what you say to be true for 2.7
    Ok, so you still use 2.79? that explains a lot. why not use 2.8? I could never go back to 2.79 now, 2.8 and soon 2.81 is so much better. I think you're right about solidwireframe in 2.79 but in 2.8 it's just one click away.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	blender_2019-10-16_23-10-51.png 
Views:	28 
Size:	1.02 MB 
ID:	146147

  7. #37
    Registered User Rayek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    1,468
    Well, of course I meant the latest 2.8 official build. What use would a comparison be with the older Lightwave 9.6 when discussing Lightwave?

    Although I still keep 2.79 around for certain addons, I switched to 2.8x for my work four months ago. The entire workflow is light years ahead of 2.79 and the viewport options are ABSOLUTELY STUNNING. They're like in an entirely new universe compared to previous releases, and an absolute joy to work with.

    The new viewport options in 2.8 have had a dramatic positive effect on my productivity. It's not just about Eevee, but what Eevee tech has brought to the viewport.

    Lightwave's viewport options can't even be compared - they're just not on the same level. 90s versus the next millennium.

    I don't quite understand why you would continue working in 2.79. 2.8 is generally solid to work in. Just earlier, in response to your latest post, I opened 2.79 and I was shocked by how much the viewport really has improved in 2.8x.

    ...but yes, viewport wireframe control in pre-2.8 releases of Blender is rather limited and well below par compared to other 3d apps. It was actually one of my pet peeves. But no more. The options are beyond what I had or could have hoped for.
    Last edited by Rayek; 10-16-2019 at 04:29 PM.
    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

  8. #38

    Cool, but [B] really needs a faster way of adding instanced vegetation, plugins or not. It kinda sucks now, unfortunately.
    LW vidz   DPont donate   LightWiki   RHiggit   IKBooster   My vidz

  9. #39
    Dreamer Ztreem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,147
    Quote Originally Posted by erikals View Post
    Cool, but [B] really needs a faster way of adding instanced vegetation, plugins or not. It kinda sucks now, unfortunately.
    Compared to what?

  10. #40
    RETROGRADER prometheus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    sweden stockholm
    Posts
    15,345
    Quote Originally Posted by Rayek View Post
    Well, of course I meant the latest 2.8 official build. What use would a comparison be with the older Lightwave 9.6 when discussing Lightwave?

    Although I still keep 2.79 around for certain addons, I switched to 2.8x for my work four months ago. The entire workflow is light years ahead of 2.79 and the viewport options are ABSOLUTELY STUNNING. They're like in an entirely new universe compared to previous releases, and an absolute joy to work with.

    The new viewport options in 2.8 have had a dramatic positive effect on my productivity. It's not just about Eevee, but what Eevee tech has brought to the viewport.

    Lightwave's viewport options can't even be compared - they're just not on the same level. 90s versus the next millennium.

    I don't quite understand why you would continue working in 2.79. 2.8 is generally solid to work in. Just earlier, in response to your latest post, I opened 2.79 and I was shocked by how much the viewport really has improved in 2.8x.

    ...but yes, viewport wireframe control in pre-2.8 releases of Blender is rather limited and well below par compared to other 3d apps. It was actually one of my pet peeves. But no more. The options are beyond what I had or could have hoped for.
    2.79 and 2.8, in my meaning not as different as comparing lw 9.6 to 2019.
    for 2.8..In general I have heard a lot of comments on not being stable or production ready as 2.79, though that is of course something I would need to learn for myself and not just go with others opinions, but thatīs how it goes sometimes.
    I will quite soon however try to focus on working more in 2.8, that is the way to go of course.
    I also use the fracture build from time to time, would

    But...

    1. I am probably using blender for other things than you, so the case scenerios and what it requires may be different.

    2. Time factor, both you and Ztreem I believe ..have started to work in blender far earlier than I have..I think, so I am not there yet
    to be comfortable with 2.8 ..when I still struggle with 2.79.



    3. Plugins missing in
    2.8...sky texture? (necessary)
    Sketchup import (not necessary)
    Hairnet plugin? is it available for 2.8, donīt think so.

    4.some issues with sculpting

    5. some issues with cycles smoke rendering which works in 2.79, but in 2.8 it yields issues of not rendering properly.

    6. stability issues where 2.8 just shuts down.

    7. I need to get more comfortable with the new icons, after all..I have just made myself comfortable with the old ones..only to find out that
    I need to learn the new ones.

    Generally I agree with you..I should try to get up on speed with 2.8, and in general the new UI and structure is better, with a few exceptions perhaps, or some habits I need to change.
    Have to say..I Love the realtime volumetric stuff in eevee, I think I managed to get the grasp on quality in there with shadows etc, blooming in realtime etc.
    Currently I have 2.8.74 and 2.8 23, and the latest build is just downloaded and pending to install these upcoming days.
    I didnīt like that they made 2.8 74 with monochromic icons in the same color as the text in the add items menu, in 2.8.23 it was orange and a bit colored otherwise..not sure if they changed that back again in the latest build.

    But thanks for trying to emphasize the difference between 2.79 and 2.8 latest builds...it may help me get up to speed in focusing on the latest build.
    And Lightwave 2019 is still there on my computer to learn with all the new VDB stuff.

    I think I would prefer the icon menu in 2.79 or 2.8.23 ...in the sense that each icon had itīs own color and distinguished itself from any other icon in a much clearer way than the icons running verticly in 2.8.74 or later, they are mostly monochrom and you have to interprete the icon shape only, where previously reacted on the bluish color of the modifier, or the box for object...I can not distinguish it based on such premises, thus I feel it to be not so good.

  11. #41
    RETROGRADER prometheus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    sweden stockholm
    Posts
    15,345
    Quote Originally Posted by Ztreem View Post
    Ok, so you still use 2.79? that explains a lot. why not use 2.8? I could never go back to 2.79 now, 2.8 and soon 2.81 is so much better. I think you're right about solidwireframe in 2.79 but in 2.8 it's just one click away.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	blender_2019-10-16_23-10-51.png 
Views:	28 
Size:	1.02 MB 
ID:	146147
    Explaination made in the quoting of Rayeks post.

  12. #42

    Quote Originally Posted by Ztreem View Post
    Compared to what?
    i already mentioned that.

    Explaination made in the quoting of Rayeks post.
    Yep. It is nice, but not "there" for many artists.
    LW vidz   DPont donate   LightWiki   RHiggit   IKBooster   My vidz

  13. #43
    Registered User Rayek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    1,468
    Quote Originally Posted by prometheus View Post



    3. Plugins missing in
    2.8...sky texture? (necessary)

    4.some issues with sculpting

    5. some issues with cycles smoke rendering which works in 2.79, but in 2.8 it yields issues of not rendering properly.

    6. stability issues where 2.8 just shuts down.

    7. I need to get more comfortable with the new icons, after all..I have just made myself comfortable with the old ones..only to find out that
    I need to learn the new ones.
    Funnily enough a studio agreed with you on the lack of a good physical sky option, and created this:
    https://blenderartists.org/t/physica...or-2-8/1185314

    Looks very good. I may get it myself.

    You did discover the standard Dynamic Sky addon, I assume?

    Sculpting in 2.81 is getting a major update. Check out the latest 2.81 beta builds.

    Stability is overall very good, but I agree 2.8 is still not as crash free as the previous 2.7 releases. No wonder, after the complete overhaul and rewrite of the core. I do notice that 2.81 beta seems to crash much less than 2.8. I've been working with 2.81 since this morning and now (17:30) haven't experience a crash yet. I've opened various scenes, worked with materials, lighting, rendering, cpu and gpu and Eevee, switched to luxcorerender, and no issues.

    And yes, your usage cases are different from mine: I hardly do any smoke or volumetric stuff.
    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

  14. #44
    RETROGRADER prometheus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    sweden stockholm
    Posts
    15,345
    Quote Originally Posted by Rayek View Post
    Funnily enough a studio agreed with you on the lack of a good physical sky option, and created this:
    https://blenderartists.org/t/physica...or-2-8/1185314

    Looks very good. I may get it myself.

    You did discover the standard Dynamic Sky addon, I assume?

    Sculpting in 2.81 is getting a major update. Check out the latest 2.81 beta builds.

    Stability is overall very good, but I agree 2.8 is still not as crash free as the previous 2.7 releases. No wonder, after the complete overhaul and rewrite of the core. I do notice that 2.81 beta seems to crash much less than 2.8. I've been working with 2.81 since this morning and now (17:30) haven't experience a crash yet. I've opened various scenes, worked with materials, lighting, rendering, cpu and gpu and Eevee, switched to luxcorerender, and no issues.

    And yes, your usage cases are different from mine: I hardly do any smoke or volumetric stuff.
    That physical sky is a bit more interesting than ordinary backdrops, since this seem to yield a kind of volumetric effect (though I am not sure that is what it is)
    But this addon adresses the issues I have with sunsky, and physical sky in Lightwave, it isnīt a seperate entity as a backdrop ..but rather a full depth environment sky and air system addon.
    Excerpt from the developer pointing out just that..

    "A common practice in almost all of CG software is that components like sky, sun, fog, water, clouds, lighting is considered separate entities and they do not interact to each other. In real, physical world everything influences everything. Even bigger issue can happen when different components are created by separate teams. It causes issues where one component looks amazing and realistic, but then everything else looks off and disconnected. Then artist`s responsibility is to find the issues, tweak the settings, add fake lights and other “magic” to connect the pieces back to a nice overall render. At least this has been my workflow for many years and it just felt wrong."


    No actually..I havenīt checked that dynamic sky addon..donīt think so.
    Anyway..blender 2.8 could use a native "physical sky" without cost, and if that wonīt do for more realism, I may be willing to get that physical starlight and atmosphere...I need to do research on it a bit more first.
    Lightwaveīs (dpont sunsky) and physical sky natively is better than blenders sky texture for sure anyway, easier to setup, more adjusment controls and reacts to a proper sunlight, which the blender sky texture doesnīt..unless adding the extra sunscript.

    The free blender fluid solution with a nice pbr volume material and open gl shading for both fire and smoke, is still under my research when comparing to TFD.....where I feel TFD more capable of simulating faster and also providing better quality at lower resolutions, but at the same time, the older volumetric in TFD is a bottleneck and not a PBR model, and itīs multiple scattering is horrible slow as well as tweaking shader, compared to blenders principle volume shader.

    Blender full fire and smoke Opengl, tfd has not, blender weight emission, tfd has not, blender forces..will work on the fluids as well as rigid bodies, tfd will not, so there are several issues that hasnīt been resolved,including particle advection which is there for the cinema4d version but not for lightwave, My questions around this has never been answered with any kind of reply for a couple of years..so I just gave up on it.


    And here is where Kelly should intervene
    and post some more substance on what the heck he is working on to get things on topic.
    No seriously..I understand if it needs to be a bit of a secret until betatesting is done.

  15. #45
    RETROGRADER prometheus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    sweden stockholm
    Posts
    15,345
    Quote Originally Posted by Rayek View Post

    And yes, your usage cases are different from mine: I hardly do any smoke or volumetric stuff.
    And to return the favour of you pointing to that sky atmospheric addon) Heads up and check Lino Grandis channel for volumetric clouds..a video with octane posted just today, something that resembles the way we do it with primitive item in volume mode in Lightwave...but I wonīt post the video here ..just avoiding not being tot promotive of something else, you have to look for it yourself.

    But not sure if you have any use for it, since you hardly do any volumetric stuff.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 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
  •