Page 9 of 10 FirstFirst ... 78910 LastLast
Results 121 to 135 of 140

Thread: NewTek marketing and publicity

  1. #121
    Ok, I'm not gonna do the quote thing..waaay too much to quote..hehe.

    I agree with Cageman, LW has more potential than people give it credit for. It is not just used for TV..it is used in features as well..that list NewTek has on the LW page isn't just their favorite movies and shows..its all the stuff LW has been used on to one degree or another..which means it 'can' keep up with the big apps at least in some areas.

    What I notice is the people who tend to say that LW is too limited are people who came from Maya or Max first, and haven't been using LW for more than a couple years..at least thats the impression I get.

    To be sure until recently, the SDK was limited, but it's getting much better, which will allow the creation of more 3rd party plugs. Also, with alot of the changes to the code, it means that there is more communiation between LW core and plugins.

    Lightwave3D was always an artist's package..it was intuitive, had an easy learning curve and could most anything right out of the box. NewTek also worked with studios when they had a specific request. Maya and Max never really had that kind of support, so yeah..studios had to hire custom coders and shader writers.

    Btw, I was wrong..It's $5000 for Maya unlimited...$2000 is for Maya Complete, which lacks some of the really cool stuff....oh, and btw..that only gets you one version..you are stuck with whatver one you get (pc, mac, linux) as you cant use the license on other machines.
    Rob Depew
    Modeler/Animator/Editor
    Web Portfolio
    My Patreon
    YouTube
    Lightwave3D 2019, RF10, Gaea and more..
    Threadripper 32 core , 48gb, GTX-1070
    Asus 752vt i7 2.6 x 4, 48gb, GTX-970

  2. #122
    Quote Originally Posted by lwanmtr View Post

    Btw, I was wrong..It's $5000 for Maya unlimited...$2000 is for Maya Complete, which lacks some of the really cool stuff....oh, and btw..that only gets you one version..you are stuck with whatver one you get (pc, mac, linux) as you cant use the license on other machines.
    maya has options to move your install i believe...i think it has the same softlock as 3dsmax where you install on a destination pc then you can export your key to that pc from your current installed pc..also a usb dongle is available for an extra cost if you want to move maya areound often, say in a classroom.


    you are right about mac/pc..you buy the o/s version you want so lightwave scores there for sure.
    stee+cat
    real name: steve gilbert
    http://www.cresshead.com/

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

  3. #123
    I dont think a usb key is available..classrooms use a site license, so they get the license off the server. Dunno how much that costs..hehe. Not sure about their policy on moving licenses..they probably charge a fee, and I dont think you can continue to use the other..I may be wrong, though.

    And is the word 'dongle' funny to anyone else? hehe.
    Rob Depew
    Modeler/Animator/Editor
    Web Portfolio
    My Patreon
    YouTube
    Lightwave3D 2019, RF10, Gaea and more..
    Threadripper 32 core , 48gb, GTX-1070
    Asus 752vt i7 2.6 x 4, 48gb, GTX-970

  4. #124
    Quote Originally Posted by Cageman View Post
    PointOven... it doesn't have to more complex than that, really.
    It gets more complex than that all by itself, real fast. In every Maya-to-LW project I've seen, there has been a need to go back the other way.
    Quote Originally Posted by Cageman View Post
    That's the thing... coding. I'm talking about being able to hire artists instead of coders.
    Who's going to solve the myriad of problems that crop up? Who's going to get that fluid sim to work in LW?
    Quote Originally Posted by Cageman View Post
    I'm able to do things in LW without coding anything where I see Maya needing alot of code. Again, focus on artists. I'm more impressed with really good looking shots where a single person has done ALL aspects of it, compared to overexposed CG that a team of 100 people has done.
    Do you really think that one person can do all aspects of hundreds of shots, sometimes over a thousand? All at feature quality? How many people can you find that can do all those things at feature quality, in any package?
    Quote Originally Posted by Cageman View Post
    While I agree to your sentiment that LW couldn't be used for rigging Optimus Prime, there are still alot of things that you can achive in LW without having to code a single line. That is my point.
    Why have 2 tools that do the same thing, when one can do more than the other.
    Quote Originally Posted by Cageman View Post
    If LW then expand on both scripting and structure to allow for a hell of alot more, I'm all for it! Actually, I've been very vocal about it.
    So have I, but until that time -
    Quote Originally Posted by Cageman View Post
    I've honestly had times where I wanted to throw LW out the door, but instead, I foucused on what I wanted to achive, talked to some friends who are well versed in L-scripting and plugin programming, and viola.. I got some neat tools that automated what I needed to do. So, yes, I do apprichiate the work that coders do to aid the production, but in LW I've found that it doesn't need as much as Maya in order to deliver what is said on the box.

    I agree somewhat. If you need completely new types of effects that no-one has seen, Houdini is usually the way to go though. The procedural way Houdini works really has no limits to what to achive. But movies are NOT ALWAYS about things you've never seen before. Not by a longshot.
    LW does get a fair amount of those jobs. But how much notoriety do you get from transparent effects?
    Quote Originally Posted by Cageman View Post
    Also, I have to add that a plugin for LW could essentially be a tool that operates within it's own "atmosphere" without any restrictions to LW more than input/output, or so as far as I've understood it. So... take C4 as an example. The layout part of it has it's own dynamics engine that works more or less in realtime, and it is a displacement plugin. I'm still not convinced that the full potential of LWs current plugin architecture has been fully exposed or used in any given plugin. So, if we are not limiting ourself to pure scripting, as far as I've understood it, the sky is the limit, even for LW.

    And further more... I'm not AGAINST what you are saying, but more often than seldom, too many people underestimate what LW can do in capable hands.

    Well, I could give many examples of where LW works right out of the box, where Maya needs custom coding for the stuff that needs to be done.

    Would you still go for Maya if you had the choice in that situation?
    Like I said, if I were freelance it would have to be LW. But for anything with hundreds of shots, you need a big, efficient pipeline, and you need all the tools to hook into it. A huge amount of automation is needed. Maybe when I get as experienced and knowledgeable as the programmers, pipeline technicians and renderman shader writers I'll be the one person who says that LW can do LOTR, but I doubt it. My whole point is that whoever does the big features will get the most notoriety / respect. Saying that another app can do *some* of the same things won't change that.
    Last edited by toby; 01-10-2009 at 05:07 PM.
    Confirmed -
    No Weapons of Mass Destruction
    or links to Al Queda or 9/11. (Sep. 2003)

  5. #125
    Creative Director jaxtone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    1,482

    Toby!

    I have read some inputs from you in this thread and I respect your opinion, but I cannot agree with the image you describe of the film industry! I suppose you mean streamlined Hollywood productions where the outer surface and marketing many times seems to be more important than the content and drama curve itself!

    When you raise the billion dollar film industry to the skies I see something else. To me its not optional to work as an invisible and many times ruled to the bone render monkey, script slave or another small and replacable part in a huge machinery!

    I am not a fan of commercials but because you mention them as negative I personally believe that the creative freedom you experience when creating a "toothpaste commercial" within a small company can be way more emotional than taking a role in the ant farm!

    (Well if someone ask me to direct a feature film I wonīt back off, but then I am at least not invisible and forgotten before the end texts fades out!)
    Curious

  6. #126
    I personally hate commercials because of their general stupidity..but from the creative end..I have seen some pretty creative work from them..and yeah they are generally produced with a very small staff. In the big studios, most artists dont have the luxury of going from start to finish on a project..usually they do one aspect, then hand it off to someone else to finish.
    Rob Depew
    Modeler/Animator/Editor
    Web Portfolio
    My Patreon
    YouTube
    Lightwave3D 2019, RF10, Gaea and more..
    Threadripper 32 core , 48gb, GTX-1070
    Asus 752vt i7 2.6 x 4, 48gb, GTX-970

  7. #127
    Almost newbie Cageman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Malmö, SWEDEN
    Posts
    7,650
    Quote Originally Posted by toby View Post
    It gets more complex than that all by itself, real fast. In every Maya-to-LW project I've seen, there has been a need to go back the other way.
    You mean exactly how? PointOven works both ways which is the reason why I throw things at LW at work. If I were not able to transfer things between LW/Maya both ways, it would certanly become a mess. But that is not the case.

    Who's going to solve the myriad of problems that crop up? Who's going to get that fluid sim to work in LW?
    Fluidsim as in water effects or gas/fire?

    As far as I know, people tend to use RealFlow for water rather than Mayas built in fluid. Realflow talks to all apps, so that is not really a problem.

    Gas/Fire effects done with Mayas fluids are probably better if they stay in Maya and are rendered there.

    Do you really think that one person can do all aspects of hundreds of shots, sometimes over a thousand? All at feature quality? How many people can you find that can do all those things at feature quality, in any package?
    That isn't really what I was saying though. I said that I'm more impressed by very good generalists compared to very good specialists.

    Of course you need huge teams to tackle large projects, I don't think I ever argumented against that.. my point was that I'm more impressed with people who can do it all and also deliver their shots to the big screen, and LightWave lends itself towards people who wants to be able to do many aspects of a shot by themselves.

    Why have 2 tools that do the same thing, when one can do more than the other.
    I think I mentioned this in an earlier post, but safe to say is that studios like ILM and Weta, who have the manpower to write custom code, doesn't really NEED a package like LW, but we all know that ILM have use LW in the past, so even at places like ILM, LW certanly have had it's share of usefullness.

    Smaller studios with less manpower and codingtalent could benefit from having LW as a rendersolution. Be it that they use Maya or XSI or whatever as their main tool, but LWs approach to rendering is still a hell of alot more userfriendly/artist friendly compared to Maya/MR or Maya/Renderman. MR in 3DS Max and XSI seems to be a hell of alot better as far as I've understood.

    I know for a FACT that John Knoll has been playing with Modo as a renderer, transfering animated characters from Maya into Modo using PointOven. I've also seen posts on the PointOven mailinglist where studios have moved from Maya to LW for rendering, using PointOven as their main link between the two, and they are apparently very happy about it.

    So have I, but until that time -
    Maybe you should stop being so negative. Negativity is truly destructive and can be the thing that hinders anyone from achiving something, because it doesn't allow you to "open up". I've had some great experiences where LW has saved Mayas butt a couple of times for personal projects. So I'm happy to say that by using Maya/LW in combination, I've been able to achive alot more by myself, compared to using any of them separately.

    And that is my point...


    LW does get a fair amount of those jobs. But how much notoriety do you get from transparent effects?
    I'm more impressed with stuff that I never thought were CG.. be it set extensions, characters or whatever. Good Luck Chuck was a really cool, because I never thought that so many penguins actually were CG when I saw them in the movie. On that note, HD instance seems to be very, very easy to use for crowdshots like that and on the contrary, in Maya...guess what? *custom coding required...again...*

    Like I said, if I were freelance it would have to be LW. But for anything with hundreds of shots, you need a big, efficient pipeline, and you need all the tools to hook into it. A huge amount of automation is needed. Maybe when I get as experienced and knowledgeable as the programmers, pipeline technicians and renderman shader writers I'll be the one person who says that LW can do LOTR, but I doubt it. My whole point is that whoever does the big features will get the most notoriety / respect. Saying that another app can do *some* of the same things won't change that.
    Again, I'm not arguing against this at all. I'm just saying that too many people really doesn't know the capabilites of LW. There are many small studios (6-20 people) that I'm quite sure could benefit from knowing LW inside/out and also know how to pipe it into their existing pipeline. Those are the ones that NT should target with some really good videos showing how effective such a pipe actually can become...again, for smaller sized studios. There are plenty of those studios here in Sweden and non of them are familiar with LW as far as I know.

    Wether or not they would add LW to thier existing pipe remains to be seen, but at least people would know about it and see that it actually works, so they will not become hostile if LW is mentioned.

    Senior Technical Supervisor
    Cinematics Department
    Massive - A Ubisoft Studio
    -----
    Intel Core i7-4790K @ 4GHz
    16GB Ram
    GeForce GTX 1080 8GB
    Windows 10 Pro x64

  8. #128
    Quote Originally Posted by Cageman View Post
    On that note, HD instance seems to be very, very easy to use for crowdshots like that and on the contrary, in Maya...guess what? *custom coding required...again...*
    Funny you should mention HD instance, it was dropped years ago at DD Commercials, because it didn't look good enough. If it didn't look good enough for commercials, guess how it rates in movies.

    I'd use LW on features if I could, but since I don't say it's just as good as Maya and Renderman, then I'm obviously a snob, and must be lying.

    Ok, I give up, Lightwave can do just as much as Maya and Renderman, only easier, and the big studios just don't use it because they're snooty. The experience of people who make things like The Matrix doesn't compare to the experience of people who work in television, and they don't realize they don't need any coding, all they need is artists who will try to come up with workarounds then switch to a second, more powerful package, only when necessary. And studios don't realize they should risk 100's of millions of dollars on workarounds and third-party plugins.

    Is that what you want to hear? You clearly don't want to hear the personal experience of a lw'er who's seen both sides of the fence, unless he can explain concepts that are beyond him (me) in extreme detail, nor do you care what thousands of movie artists think. You only want to imagine 100's of generalists making a movie the same way they'd make a tv commercial. There are things I wish even Renderman would do as well as LW, but I'm not about to claim that I know enough to say LW can compete head-to-head with it. With my level of knowledge, that would be both arrogant and stupid.

    This whole ridiculous argument started with my 'preposterous' idea that big studios don't use LW because it's not fully scriptable, not open enough... something you've already agreed to, and it's gotten completely blown out of proportion by your defensive arguing about what it *can* do - as if I didn't know. Notice that I never said that smaller studios should use Maya. So please, don't tell me AGAIN that LW is better for small studios, I ALREADY KNOW THAT and it's NOT THE POINT.

    And who's being negative? I'm just telling you why the big studios don't use lightwave, and you just keep responding that it's good for small studios... which I've already stated myself TWICE!
    Confirmed -
    No Weapons of Mass Destruction
    or links to Al Queda or 9/11. (Sep. 2003)

  9. #129
    lol toby. some of the guys you are arguing with are just lovers of arguments. you should see some of their reasons for keeping LW as two separate apps in the beta section (none whatsoever).

    anyone that tries to say that LW can do everything Maya can is ignorant, inexperienced and probably havent really used maya enough to have an opinion about it.

    a shame really. people like that infect others with their ignorance and do more harm than good. in this business you use the best tool for the job.. period. while lightwave is improving its still limited to a certain type of project and a certain budget.

  10. #130
    Creative Director jaxtone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    1,482

    Karate or Iaido?

    This discussion reminds me a little bit of discussions between people when I was younger, when people tried to compare the effeciency behind different styles of Martial Arts! Well, in the end words aint just enough, cause itīs probably on a battle field truth is revealed! Who would be stupid enough to use a sword in a crowded city when Ju-Jutsu could do the job more discreet, and who would kill a fly with a Mavashi Geri Jodan? Different situations, different tools!

    I would definitely add Maya to my agenda if the price was right and I had time learning it. (Itīs still hard to accept that Autodesk put their claws into almost any major 3D software on the market. I cannot understand that people disagree to see what this greed creates. But probably that has something to do with who pays the bills.) Sometimes I wonder if the time I spent on work arounds with LW during 10 years could have made me proficient in both Maya and XSI! But still, I truly love the interface of Lightwave and itīs probably the same kind of love that occures when you canīt get rid of you first car or wife! Just kidding, but this repeated old story is always spelled the same way: Love is blind!

    A questions to all Maya proclaimers:
    Did all of you pay for the package, updates, external render licenses and extra features yourself?

    How do you act with the license owner issue the day you wanīt to sell the application because you donīt need it anymore? (As I understood when I spoke to Autodesk a couple of years ago you actually never own the software, itīs more like you rent it on lifetime from Autodesk, which means that you cannot sell it if you should want to do that, if this is true I must say itīs a hell of a deal!
    Last edited by jaxtone; 01-11-2009 at 05:17 AM.
    Curious

  11. #131
    Creative Director jaxtone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    1,482

    Different applications

    Sorry to ask but I must have missed this thread! Whatīs the negative aspect of having two different applications that are merged together seamless by an interface? I tried out Maya and XSI during a period earlier in life but found it annoying to open and close the scene each time I had to model or modify an object separately! Its not preferable doing this in the total scene with all cameras, lights, scripts and objects lined up all together!

    Question:
    If you wanīt to have the whole scene active but also want to re-model or modify an obect separate, do you have to open a new additive Maya project to make this happen or what? Just wanna know!

    Quote Originally Posted by Stooch View Post
    lol toby. some of the guys you are arguing with are just lovers of arguments. you should see some of their reasons for keeping LW as two separate apps in the beta section (none whatsoever).
    Curious

  12. #132
    Almost newbie Cageman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Malmö, SWEDEN
    Posts
    7,650
    Quote Originally Posted by toby View Post
    Funny you should mention HD instance, it was dropped years ago at DD Commercials, because it didn't look good enough. If it didn't look good enough for commercials, guess how it rates in movies.
    Really? So, do you think those penguins in Good Luck Chuck looks bad then?


    I'd use LW on features if I could, but since I don't say it's just as good as Maya and Renderman, then I'm obviously a snob, and must be lying.
    No... that's really not the case here. Lets not go into the alley of namecalling or anything of that sort. I have yet to call you anything, I hope that my arguments havn't implied such things, but by what you wrote seems to imply that I have done so?

    If that is the case, then I'm sorry.

    What you are talking about is a studio situation which I truly respect and understand... with tons of custom code ANY app can become THE BEST APP. Maya/Renderman are perfect examples of when that is the case.

    But what I see (again, this from my perspective, where I work) is that tons of hard work is poured into Maya to get some toolsets up to the same level that is avaliable "out of the box" in LW, and if I add Janus and exrTrader, LW runs away from Maya quite severely (again, this is based on where I work and what we do and where we are). These are two plugins that are avaliable for anyone to buy. If more Maya studios would start to sell their custom tools that deals with rendering with MR or Renderman, I'm quite sure LW would again take a back seat. But this isn't the case...every studio that goes for Maya has to re-invent the wheel themselves, which is crazy, and can take a very long time, depending on numerouse factors.

    Again, this is not a problem for large studios and I'm not adressing those at all, but since no-one seem to know about LW and what it can do with two-three plugins, it's time for NewTek to address their marketing. AD is really good at making artists belive that only their tools are the ones that can deliver high quality work, which, I think both of us has established, isn't true at all.

    Ok, I give up, Lightwave can do just as much as Maya and Renderman, only easier, and the big studios just don't use it because they're snooty.
    Are you trying to put words into my mouth?
    The experience of people who make things like The Matrix doesn't compare to the experience of people who work in television, and they don't realize they don't need any coding, all they need is artists who will try to come up with workarounds then switch to a second, more powerful package, only when necessary. And studios don't realize they should risk 100's of millions of dollars on workarounds and third-party plugins.
    Re-read the second paragraph in this post.
    Is that what you want to hear? You clearly don't want to hear the personal experience of a lw'er who's seen both sides of the fence, unless he can explain concepts that are beyond him (me) in extreme detail, nor do you care what thousands of movie artists think. You only want to imagine 100's of generalists making a movie the same way they'd make a tv commercial. There are things I wish even Renderman would do as well as LW, but I'm not about to claim that I know enough to say LW can compete head-to-head with it. With my level of knowledge, that would be both arrogant and stupid.
    Just to be clear here... I've been working at two studios who are mainly Maya centric studios, however this last one that I'm currently working at has a tendency to be little more open minded towards problem solving and that is why I can use LW when I see it fit and no one is complaining since what I do works.

    Again, this argument was about "What people see on the big screen is what makes them want to use Maya", where I've said that there are plenty of effects done by single artists or small teams using LW that are truly beautifull, but for some reason that FACT has a tendency to not go through. For those people who come to learn Maya because "this or that effect was done with it", may not at all be aware of what other packages, like LW, has to offer them as individual artists rather than an ant in a farm.

    This whole ridiculous argument started with my 'preposterous' idea that big studios don't use LW because it's not fully scriptable, not open enough... something you've already agreed to, and it's gotten completely blown out of proportion by your defensive arguing about what it *can* do - as if I didn't know.
    My argument has been towards "NewTek marketing and publicity" where LW should be marketed as a companion app to Maya (as an example) and further more I've explained why I think it would be a good idea. I've also been quite clear with the fact that LW isn't really what big studios need, on the other hand, there are plenty of artists that possibly would be interrested in adding LW as tool for their rendering (as an example) if they ever move away from being a part of a large studio...provided that they get this information in their face. Same applies for smaller studios... again, if they get this type of information in their face.

    This information seems to be very sparse...I would say... on the verge of non-existent.
    Notice that I never said that smaller studios should use Maya. So please, don't tell me AGAIN that LW is better for small studios, I ALREADY KNOW THAT and it's NOT THE POINT.
    Really? It seemed to me that you weren't aware? As an example, you told me that you've yet to see anything that works two ways when it comes to a Maya/LW pipeline, and you weren't even aware of the fact that PointOven works both ways... am I right to get suspicious?

    Anyhow... It seems we have been arguing the same thing, but with very different words.

    And who's being negative? I'm just telling you why the big studios don't use lightwave, and you just keep responding that it's good for small studios... which I've already stated myself TWICE!
    Well, sorry for that. But, looking back at some of your arguments and comments, you really gave me the impression that you think LW is a pile of crap, no matter what. At least I know that isn't the case, and I'm truly sorry for not understanding this until now.
    Last edited by Cageman; 01-11-2009 at 05:45 AM.
    Senior Technical Supervisor
    Cinematics Department
    Massive - A Ubisoft Studio
    -----
    Intel Core i7-4790K @ 4GHz
    16GB Ram
    GeForce GTX 1080 8GB
    Windows 10 Pro x64

  13. #133
    Almost newbie Cageman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Malmö, SWEDEN
    Posts
    7,650
    Quote Originally Posted by Stooch View Post
    lol toby. some of the guys you are arguing with are just lovers of arguments. you should see some of their reasons for keeping LW as two separate apps in the beta section (none whatsoever).

    anyone that tries to say that LW can do everything Maya can is ignorant, inexperienced and probably havent really used maya enough to have an opinion about it.

    a shame really. people like that infect others with their ignorance and do more harm than good. in this business you use the best tool for the job.. period. while lightwave is improving its still limited to a certain type of project and a certain budget.
    Exactly...

    But, to be on topic... how many of all those who graduate or tinker at home really knows about LW and how it can become an efficient companion to Maya (as an example). How many Maya-veterans would want to add LW as a renderer if they KNEW the ins and outs of such a pipeline?
    Senior Technical Supervisor
    Cinematics Department
    Massive - A Ubisoft Studio
    -----
    Intel Core i7-4790K @ 4GHz
    16GB Ram
    GeForce GTX 1080 8GB
    Windows 10 Pro x64

  14. #134
    I am one of them and im always here ready to give my opinion and help. I use lightwave with maya at work right now and i have lots of things i would want to see in LW based on my maya experience. most importantly im not naive or fanboyish about any of the apps to mislead people with false hopes and promises. I personally would LOVE to use lightwave with maya to render voxels. because i have written literally pages of mel code to get particles and shaders to do my bidding. mental ray integration is a nightmarish kick in the nutts and its not even half as fast as lightwave.

    the fact that lightwave has the awesome render node pricing (cant beat free) makes me a proponent for maya-lw workflow. im sure there are many ex lightwave maya users out there who share my sentinments. pretty much all of my feature requests in this thread would make any maya user take notice. one only has to say, fast and easy sprite rendering workflow and you will get any maya users attention. sure there are maya fluids but they have inherent limitations. such as limited grid volumes, huge cache files, render memory issues and atrocious problems with network rendering. cloud shader for maya SUCKS. you cannot have multiple emitters interact because maya CANNOT DEPTH SORT the particles, you have to break out each particle solver! mental ray has a shitload of limitations and gotchas and weird render errors that require convoluted and creative solutions. such as freezing particles high above the emitter so that the bounding box doesnt collapse with your particle volume and appear as a weird anomaly at render time. etc.

    just STUPID STUPID limitations that make using maya particles and volumetrics with MR a royal pain in the ***. the only real option to a properly rendered particle effect is to use hardware shading (with its own limitations) or maya standard render (which is slow as ****)


    the best way to get a decent looking missile trail with particles in maya, is to hack it by instancing a copy of a fluid shaded volume on each particle! Forget proper volume shadowing! WTF! and then setup a stupidly convoluted nodal setup in order to affect the fluid shader with particle attributes. and it renders slow as **** and looks worse than any hypervoxel volume mode that comes straight out of lightwave with literally a few mouse clicks.

    rendering motion blur in mental ray... HORRIBLY SLOW. infact it is so slow that it destroys any advantages from the MRs blisteringly fast GI. Requiring work arounds and alot of tweaking. in lightwave at least you can use the brute force stepped blur from yore for most applications and its more than adequate and much faster than MR. Sure for more extreme blur scenarios like helicopter rotors, etc MR is better suited with its linear blur with lots of steps but the second you have to turn on the 3D blur you are SCREWED.

    sure there are tradeoffs with maya doing alot of thigns well. thats why i would love to see a better effort from newtek to make a hybrid setup. where i can mix maya and lightwave render outputs.

    by the way, maya 2009 obliterates lightwave and even modo for subpatch modeling. because they stole alot of the modo ideas. but at the same time they have history. If presented with maya/lightwave pipeline, i would never touch modeler for effects work. sorry but it cant keep up with its dinky non history, non undo workflow. when it comes to rigging anything other than a rock, there is infinitelly more flexibility for using maya as my modeler. however when it comes down to rendering and lighting, its lightwave all the way. ALAS the hardbody and cloth solvers in lightwave SUCK! so again i would do that in maya and bake it out into lightwave.

    So as you can see, i would stand to GREATLY benefit from having a hybrid workflow and i knwo that any maya user out there who has went through the same pains i do as a VFX artist would agree with me. I could totally see Lightwave be the "fume fx" plugin for maya, as long as newtek gets on the ball and makes the effects part of lightwave more robust and follows in the footsteps of VUE (or allows enough flexibility for a third party solution). Think about it. any studio can afford the price tag of adding a seat of LW to their pipeline. let their other artists keep using their wofklows but as far as im concerned, an effects artist is a special case where he needs the best tools for the job. Not necessarily constrained with the software of the rest of the team. LEts use realflow for example, when it comes to liquid, maya, houdini or blender wont cut it! So there is nothing wrong with shelling out for a MORE EXPENSIVE - $3,000! app because it does something that they cant to out of the box! at the end of the day, the ffects artist is like a wizard of hackery, figuring out complicated things. and since typically they are a small part of the team, adding a few seats of LW wont hurt anyone AS LONG AS IT CAN DELIVER USEABLE OUTPUT, with proper layers and passes.

    I would love to use lightwave in this external capacity on my next project, but for this i need some KEY features. I need to see a CFD solver for the particle motions, i need to see a better surface shader for exported realflow particles (baking meshes is not optimal for large surfaces, caching, scrubbing and file size are limitations). The voxels MUST be properly motion blurred! they are not currently! I need a OUT OF THE BOX one click passes solution. again you are catering to people who primary use MAYA - having a complex node setup is NICE and I HAVE no problems figuring it out. however if you are catering to maya CONVERTS you want to make it as easy as possible. Maybe have a script that generates a dPont network to generate the pass... whatever! just make it work FAST. I need out of the box instancing, you want to play with the big boys, you better work at their scale! And i also need a better way to manage large scenes with exportable effects rigs that can be scene referenced.. I also cant have external objecst! i want PER SCENE managed attributes. I should be able to import a maya scene (collada, fbx whatever) and isolate only the elements i need to use and then do my composit ready output to the render folder. I should be able to quickly scrub the current maya plate output in the layout BG (and camera project it quickly) so taht i can better match up the effect. I would love a more robust cloth and hard body solution from LIGHTWAVE! with generated shards that are true solids, preferably through a procedural fragmentation algorithm, and can be solved fast. However i could always send it to maya and do the sim there, same goes for cloth and then bake it back into lightwave. as long as there is a seamless path for this, im happy.

    now alot of the features i ask for can already be done with maya ultimate, cloth solve, hard body solve, hair solve, even fluid driven particles, i could bake em out and import them to LW and thats cool. however the difference in price from maya complete to maya ultimate is 3x the cost of lightwave! it would be better if lightwave could deliver these advancd effects features that maya ultimate charges an arm and a leg for and compete with the upgrade price!

    I can do alot of these things myself with out newtek but this is a marketing thread. so we need to think of potential buyers, not existing lightwave users. These things should be stupidly fast and adaptable to an existing project structure.
    Last edited by Stooch; 01-11-2009 at 11:21 AM.

  15. #135
    Robert Ireland bobakabob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Nottingham UK
    Posts
    2,757
    Has Newtek indicated any intention of upgrading Hypervoxels? Good as they are, particles seem to have been neglected. A more nodal approach would be fantastic.
    Art and photography Flickr site
    Animation, facial rigging, modelling ArtStation
    Assorted animations Robert Ireland

Page 9 of 10 FirstFirst ... 78910 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

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
  •