How old are you? (Looking for youngest and oldest LW user)

RPSchmidt

Active member
54 here, still working every day. Up until a year ago, using Lightwave every day but a combination of circumstance and a new contract pushed me fully into Blender for work.

I wish I had the energy after work to get back to Lightwave at home... used / own LW 11 through 2020 and assorted plugins and have always preferred Lightwave for speed modeling... I love the renderer, but without GPU support it's just too slow

At some point, hoping to get back to it and of course, I still lurk here and occasionally get into LW and scruff around.
 

kolby

Member
I'm 47, look 40 (they say). Started as a hobbyist with Imagine on A500, then I switched to LW 3.5 on A1200, then I left 3D due to too long renders, jumped back to LW5.6 on my first PC (intel Celeron), then left again due to too long renders (impatient patient). Since 2003 I'm freelancer, using LW for daily work.
 

Axis3d

Lightwave User Since 1990
56. Been using Lightwave for about 30 years now, since back in the Amiga days.

Have used it professionally this whole time and have made a career because of it. I remember getting into arguments over the years with users of other 3D software that swore that I couldn't have possibly done what I did with Lightwave. It had the advantage of a renderer that looked better than the other 3D apps. That was before other apps started shipping 3rd party renderers with their software. Maya looked like crap until it shipped with MentalRay, etc., plus 3rd party renderers were very expensive. Now, the average renderer looks pretty good.

Lightwave has been the Swiss Army knife of 3D apps, which enabled me to work on movie vfx, broadcast, and other special-venue projects over the years. So, thank you Newtek of past.

I'm slowly trying to learn "B", but it is hard getting rid of my muscle memory I have with Lightwave. Camera navigation in LW still feels more natural to me. Plus, there are still some things that "B" doesn't do yet, that LW does right out of the box. Eventually, I'll get there, or retire. One or the other.
 

prometheus

REBORN
56. Been using Lightwave for about 30 years now, since back in the Amiga days.

I'm slowly trying to learn "B", but it is hard getting rid of my muscle memory I have with Lightwave. Camera navigation in LW still feels more natural to me. Plus, there are still some things that "B" doesn't do yet, that LW does right out of the box. Eventually, I'll get there, or retire. One or the other.

Aren´t we tasty as a 56 year old vine :) Me Too and that has nothing to do with the current trend, just that I turned 56 the last weekend.
Same with trying to learn blender, If I only could, I would extract the feature set and speed within blender but to work in the frameworks within Lightwave.

Cam navigation, light set up, objects and bones and having defined static access in the bottom row bar is kind of Unique for Lightwave I think, and something that´s not easy to setup in the similar way in blender despite people having said you can set it up similar, but it´s really not possible unless recoding it, but I reckon the blender community doesn´t care much about that, you would have to set up individual windows and focus those for camera and lights and objects etc, but it´s not as slick as predesigned non obtrusive buttons in the bottom bar in Lightave.

It´s just the structure around a philosphy of simulating a movie stage, which I dare state to say is probably one of the best within Lightwave compared to many other other programs, and I think it is One part of the reason it has been successful for tv shows and things that need to be set up quickly and easy.

Also a matter of how to work within the viewports and also the default icons and color scheme in Layout which I prefer pretty much everything over how it looks in the blender UI.

Nodal UI however, it simply sucks in Lightwave, content wise it is actually a bit better than what you get in blender, and also the access and search functions for nodes, but navigation and working with nodes, zooming etc..it simply sucks.
 

Axis3d

Lightwave User Since 1990
Aren´t we tasty as a 56 year old vine :) Me Too and that has nothing to do with the current trend, just that I turned 56 the last weekend.
Same with trying to learn blender, If I only could, I would extract the feature set and speed within blender but to work in the frameworks within Lightwave.

Cam navigation, light set up, objects and bones and having defined static access in the bottom row bar is kind of Unique for Lightwave I think, and something that´s not easy to setup in the similar way in blender despite people having said you can set it up similar, but it´s really not possible unless recoding it, but I reckon the blender community doesn´t care much about that, you would have to set up individual windows and focus those for camera and lights and objects etc, but it´s not as slick as predesigned non obtrusive buttons in the bottom bar in Lightave.

It´s just the structure around a philosphy of simulating a movie stage, which I dare state to say is probably one of the best within Lightwave compared to many other other programs, and I think it is One part of the reason it has been successful for tv shows and things that need to be set up quickly and easy.

Also a matter of how to work within the viewports and also the default icons and color scheme in Layout which I prefer pretty much everything over how it looks in the blender UI.

Nodal UI however, it simply sucks in Lightwave, content wise it is actually a bit better than what you get in blender, and also the access and search functions for nodes, but navigation and working with nodes, zooming etc..it simply sucks.
I agree with everything you just said.
 

Rayek

Well-known member
Cam navigation, light set up, objects and bones and having defined static access in the bottom row bar is kind of Unique for Lightwave I think, and something that´s not easy to setup in the similar way in blender despite people having said you can set it up similar, but it´s really not possible unless recoding it, but I reckon the blender community doesn´t care much about that, you would have to set up individual windows and focus those for camera and lights and objects etc, but it´s not as slick as predesigned non obtrusive buttons in the bottom bar in Lightave.
It is important to understand how Blender treats work modes and selections.

In Cinema4d, for example, when the user selects a camera, the camera settings are displayed in the properties panel. Same for lights, objects, and so on. Same in Lightwave (although Lightwave Layout does not display a panel by default). Houdini's behaviour is slightly different (see below).

In Blender selecting a camera or a light may NOT display its properties initially, unless the user switches to a different mode by clicking on the green tags in the Outliner.

After activating this mode, Blender responds the same as other apps.

It is subtle, and can be confusing to new users or even to experienced users.

In v3 it seems the default mode is to display the appropriate object properties instead of the transformation properties. But once the user clicks the orange icons in the Outliner any subsequent click on any object in the viewport displays the transformation properties.

Now, this behaviour might seem illogical, until it is realized that animating consists of two different things: transformations and object properties. If the user needs to focus on transformation (movement, scaling, rotation, etc.) they work in "orange icon"mode. This ensures that when the user selects a different object, the transformation properties are shown at all times.

If, however, the user needs to focus on animating object properties, they switch to "green icon" mode. Selecting a light, a camera, or an object in the viewport then displays the object properties.

It becomes predictable behaviour, but many Blender users never bother to understand WHY it was designed that way.

And if both transformation and object properties must be accessible simultaneously, pull up the viewport sidebar which will display the transformation properties at all time, while ensuring to work in "green icon" mode.

It is also possible to select either mode of an object by clicking the orange icon or the green icon.

In Houdini the developers decide for the user which mode is preferred initially. When a light is selected, the light properties are displayed. When a camera is selected, it displays the transformation properties instead - I assume the devs presume that the camera will be animated rather than its properties adjusted initially? When the user switches to the camera's render tab, the next time that camera is selected it still displays the render settings.

One could argue that Blender's workflow is more flexible and controllable, and requires less clicks and tabbing compared to Houdini and Layout. (Layout's non-scalable property windows are really problematic, btw: too many tabs with unreadable labels, and the properties are too tightly spaced in general.)

Cinema4D's behaviour is much the same as Houdini, but smarter: like Blender, if the user switched to transformation context in one of the objects, all objects switch to that context automatically. So switch to transformation properties for one light, select the camera in the scene, and that context is also transformation. What is nice about C4D is that multiple tabs may be open simultaneously in the properties, and transformation and object parameters are then accessible together. When clicking another object, this context is retained.

It´s just the structure around a philosphy of simulating a movie stage, which I dare state to say is probably one of the best within Lightwave compared to many other other programs, and I think it is One part of the reason it has been successful for tv shows and things that need to be set up quickly and easy.

As for LightWave camera manipulation compared to other DCCs: I find camera manipulation still a chore in Layout. In Blender, Houdini, C4D, Max, etc. it all works pretty much the same - not so in Layout. But I understand many users coming from LightWave find it the bee's knees. Myself, I prefer how it is done in other apps.

Also a matter of how to work within the viewports and also the default icons and color scheme in Layout which I prefer pretty much everything over how it looks in the blender UI.

I prefer how it works in Blender and Cinema4D. After some struggling with Houdini, I find it's alright, but still better than Layout (let's not mention Modeler).

Just those tiny little navigation buttons at the top drive me away from Layout's viewports (I use a Wacom often). And on my screens the GUI font is just too small. And having Eevee quality or real-time Cycles render viewports is such a quality-of-life enhancer, compared to Layout's aged OpenGL viewports I can but shake my head at it and think "yeah, that's how it used to be". Which is a shame, because I recall LightWave being a frontrunner with VPR.

Not only LightWave, though: Houdini is rather the same and I am missing those nice Blender viewports. The Karma renderer is slow and it is not possible to assign it to a viewport (what would be the point anyway). Houdini 17 seems to have made some strides, including a beta version of a GPU accelerated render viewport. Looking forward to that for lookdev. I am planning to try Redshift with Houdini next. karma is SO slow...

Back on thread (track): I am now 52, and learning new exciting things in 3D. Houdini was initially VERY frustrating, but I am warming up to it now. It needed a conceptual paradigm shift in my brain matter for that to happen, but still quite exciting. Some things are just mind-blowingly cool in Houdini (landscape generation, simulations...)

Two weeks ago I finally got my hands on a sparkly new 3080TI, and GPU rendering has never been so much fun. I recall doing wire renders of animated spaceships on our Amiga 1000 that would take hours to complete, let alone full raytraced images :)

Never to old to learn. My dad taught himself computers at 75, and continued to learn till his passing away at 95. He was scanning, drawing, and designing books of his life on Windows till 94 and his body started to give out, unfortunately.

I intend to continue learning and doing new things beyond my centennial :cool: Hopefully we'll have some age rejuvenation techniques figured out by then. And grown up as a race to stop harming the environment and ourselves. Not betting on that, though.

Still got 50 years ahead of me (with some luck). Whoohoo!
 

dchamplain

New member
52 here. Using Lightwave since 1992 in the Amiga 4000 days. I only do a few projects per year in it now, using a Mac or PC. I was hoping for a better future for Lightwave. In the spirit of the Video Toaster, it would have been nice to have Lightwave lead the charge to 3D rendering on an iPad Pro.
 

prometheus

REBORN
It is important to understand how Blender treats work modes and selections.

In Cinema4d, for example, when the user selects a camera, the camera settings are displayed in the properties panel. Same for lights, objects, and so on. Same in Lightwave (although Lightwave Layout does not display a panel by default). Houdini's behaviour is slightly different (see below).

In Blender selecting a camera or a light may NOT display its properties initially, unless the user switches to a different mode by clicking on the green tags in the Outliner.

After activating this mode, Blender responds the same as other apps.

It is subtle, and can be confusing to new users or even to experienced users.

In v3 it seems the default mode is to display the appropriate object properties instead of the transformation properties. But once the user clicks the orange icons in the Outliner any subsequent click on any object in the viewport displays the transformation properties.

Now, this behaviour might seem illogical, until it is realized that animating consists of two different things: transformations and object properties. If the user needs to focus on transformation (movement, scaling, rotation, etc.) they work in "orange icon"mode. This ensures that when the user selects a different object, the transformation properties are shown at all times.

If, however, the user needs to focus on animating object properties, they switch to "green icon" mode. Selecting a light, a camera, or an object in the viewport then displays the object properties.

It becomes predictable behaviour, but many Blender users never bother to understand WHY it was designed that way.

And if both transformation and object properties must be accessible simultaneously, pull up the viewport sidebar which will display the transformation properties at all time, while ensuring to work in "green icon" mode.

It is also possible to select either mode of an object by clicking the orange icon or the green icon.

In Houdini the developers decide for the user which mode is preferred initially. When a light is selected, the light properties are displayed. When a camera is selected, it displays the transformation properties instead - I assume the devs presume that the camera will be animated rather than its properties adjusted initially? When the user switches to the camera's render tab, the next time that camera is selected it still displays the render settings.

One could argue that Blender's workflow is more flexible and controllable, and requires less clicks and tabbing compared to Houdini and Layout. (Layout's non-scalable property windows are really problematic, btw: too many tabs with unreadable labels, and the properties are too tightly spaced in general.)

Cinema4D's behaviour is much the same as Houdini, but smarter: like Blender, if the user switched to transformation context in one of the objects, all objects switch to that context automatically. So switch to transformation properties for one light, select the camera in the scene, and that context is also transformation. What is nice about C4D is that multiple tabs may be open simultaneously in the properties, and transformation and object parameters are then accessible together. When clicking another object, this context is retained.



As for LightWave camera manipulation compared to other DCCs: I find camera manipulation still a chore in Layout. In Blender, Houdini, C4D, Max, etc. it all works pretty much the same - not so in Layout. But I understand many users coming from LightWave find it the bee's knees. Myself, I prefer how it is done in other apps.



I prefer how it works in Blender and Cinema4D. After some struggling with Houdini, I find it's alright, but still better than Layout (let's not mention Modeler).

Just those tiny little navigation buttons at the top drive me away from Layout's viewports (I use a Wacom often). And on my screens the GUI font is just too small. And having Eevee quality or real-time Cycles render viewports is such a quality-of-life enhancer, compared to Layout's aged OpenGL viewports I can but shake my head at it and think "yeah, that's how it used to be". Which is a shame, because I recall LightWave being a frontrunner with VPR.

Not only LightWave, though: Houdini is rather the same and I am missing those nice Blender viewports. The Karma renderer is slow and it is not possible to assign it to a viewport (what would be the point anyway). Houdini 17 seems to have made some strides, including a beta version of a GPU accelerated render viewport. Looking forward to that for lookdev. I am planning to try Redshift with Houdini next. karma is SO slow...

Back on thread (track): I am now 52, and learning new exciting things in 3D. Houdini was initially VERY frustrating, but I am warming up to it now. It needed a conceptual paradigm shift in my brain matter for that to happen, but still quite exciting. Some things are just mind-blowingly cool in Houdini (landscape generation, simulations...)

Two weeks ago I finally got my hands on a sparkly new 3080TI, and GPU rendering has never been so much fun. I recall doing wire renders of animated spaceships on our Amiga 1000 that would take hours to complete, let alone full raytraced images :)

Never to old to learn. My dad taught himself computers at 75, and continued to learn till his passing away at 95. He was scanning, drawing, and designing books of his life on Windows till 94 and his body started to give out, unfortunately.

I intend to continue learning and doing new things beyond my centennial :cool: Hopefully we'll have some age rejuvenation techniques figured out by then. And grown up as a race to stop harming the environment and ourselves. Not betting on that, though.

Still got 50 years ahead of me (with some luck). Whoohoo!

Aha..those navigations buttons and maximize as quite small is what I prefer rather than the blender sized ones, but of course individual, had I used a wacom for lw, I may have come to your conclusion, blender on the other hand ..hasn´t got thoze maximize buttons as lw does, I also like the keep selected item in viewport button.

For camera properties, that isn´t the issue for me when I was talking about acessing camera, bones, objects and lights, Lightwave has those buttons additionally on top of what you can get from the scene editor/schematics ...which I don´t think any other software really has as I know of, those are hard coded ...directly visible and easier to access than jumping in to outliners, shader trees and look for either lights or cameras within a list that is changing depending on what you have in there, you have to filter each time in outliner, or setup extra windows which are obtrusive compared to how it is designed in lightwave.
Almost like a car..though I don´t drive, in lightwave you have the controls directly in front of you...while you have to look for it in a box in other programs.

I just loath the wireframe defaults in blender, black against grey...just as brilliant as black text against green plates in a typical bad company powerpoint presentation.
Fortunately you can change that and get even more colors to choose from than in Lightwave, the icon for the camera I also loath in blender, where it is just as it should be from my perspective as how it is done in Lightwave, the icons for lights are also not so good in blender, and I lack light types, fractals are LW strongpoint..blender not so much.

As for openGL, agree with you totally..there are other software than lightwave performing much better with the quality.
Can´t speak of Cinema4D though.

Houdini, yes..I so would like to dig deeper in to that, but right now refreshing a lot of 2D graphics, illustrator, indesign, and photoshop...and after effects/premier.


What forces me to test other stuff, is the slow GI and AA combined when using Hair in Lightwave or volumetrics and GI and objects on top of that, as well as missing the lack of multiple scattering within volumes,
Miss sculpting and non desctructive model types such as curves ala blender.

I like Lw Render quality apart from occasional fireflies and how slow it goes with CPU and full brute force GI, though you can work those away..it is still easier to avoid them in "B"

Also..I much much more prefer the surface panel within Lightwave than blenders surfacing panels, with the exception for how nodal workflow goes.
One thing that annoys me as well with blender, that is to center selections..I just have to make sure the mous cursor is over a viewport, and that is not often the case..so nothing happens, this is not a problem when I use shortcuts in lightwave to fit in to selection etc, it doesn´t matter where I have the cursor..it works anyway, and more things like that where I feel I can work more focused on some modeling parts, that said..there are other things on the other side that has other strengths of course.

I asked Denis if he would be interested to work out his fractals to the "b" side..since I think those simply suck and aren´t fully implemented to be accessed almost everywhere unlike Lightwave.
But I haven´t gotten any reply for that..so maybe he missed my private mail or simply isn´t interested.
 

Rayek

Well-known member
I just loath the wireframe defaults in blender, black against grey...just as brilliant as black text against green plates in a typical bad company powerpoint presentation.
In the old pre-2.8 version is wasn't even possible to change the wire colours at all. I made a case for that for years and years, and finally cracked and produced a Hitler Meme video about it (I'd like to think it had some positive impact on the developers and Ton ;-)

I agree with you that the black on dark grey is pretty unreadable. Which is why I just set the wires to random colours, which works really well (Wireframe mode --> Viewport Shading properties). Combine this with 50% depth shading, and it looks very nice and readable.

the icon for the camera I also loath in blender, where it is just as it should be from my perspective as how it is done in Lightwave,

Completely agree! The Houdini Camera viewport widget/model that represents the camera is similar to LightWave's, but LW's is still the best. I miss it so much that I looked into changing it myself, but I think it is hard-coded. That said, it is pretty simple to parent the camera to an actual camera model.

Btw, does anyone happen to have LightWave's camera model as a 3d file?

One thing that annoys me as well with blender, that is to center selections..I just have to make sure the mous cursor is over a viewport, and that is not often the case..so nothing happens, this is not a problem when I use shortcuts in lightwave to fit in to selection etc, it doesn´t matter where I have the cursor..it works anyway, and more things like that where I feel I can work more focused on some modeling parts, that said..there are other things on the other side that has other strengths of course.

Houdini's cursor is also context sensitive, just like Blender. One thing at least I did not have to get used to ;-P

I like Lw Render quality apart from occasional fireflies and how slow it goes with CPU and full brute force GI, though you can work those away..
LightWave's new renderer is just too slow for me. But so is Karma in Houdini. GPU rendering has changed the way I work, even before I got my 3080TI. Lookdev is fun and efficient now - the one thing I did not like to work on before is now actually fun. Eevee is also quite helpful.

Brought back the fun of rendering into my life.

Houdini, yes..I so would like to dig deeper in to that, but right now refreshing a lot of 2D graphics, illustrator, indesign, and photoshop...and after effects/premier.
I think you of all people would be into Houdini with its powerful landscape and volumetrics. ;-)
I wonder what you could accomplish with those tools when I look at your clouds in LightWave.
 

prometheus

REBORN
Btw, does anyone happen to have LightWave's camera model as a 3d file?

I think you of all people would be into Houdini with its powerful landscape and volumetrics. ;-)
I wonder what you could accomplish with those tools when I look at your clouds in LightWave.

I recall starting a thread in the "B" forums about wether or not it was possible to change that camera icon, I think someone made a script maybe, or a workaround.
I did a cam model based on the lightwave one, but I haven´t followed that up since then, and actually haven´t been on that forum for a while either.

Right now though..just too busy with other types of graphics mostly right now since my trial period at a course ends this month, I may be able to get another trial and then I have to decide wether or not to go prescription for some months or a full year for the Adobe series, I just think I need them.


Houdini clouds, yes..ivé been fiddling with some of that as well, it has some great stuff, but can also be clunky in workflow and to some degree it´s speed since it´s processing the vdb toolset and always" cooking" the clouds, so for good quality means slow cooking.

Lightwave has a pretty amazing volumetric system to a certain point, in the sense that it is quite easy to start and get going..and the fact that it has a larger toolset of fractals to play with thatn both blender and houdini, and as I said, the fact that I can focus on camera angles, and lighting direction and move items with a navigation that for me is much easier to do than in blender and houdini is one part of why I still hang on to it.

It´s a different kind of lighting and volumetric system in houdini, and for me personally..more tedious to setup lighting and density compared to Lightwave.
Houdini having static noise convection as a feature, as well as Blender have now with mesh to volume and volume displace, that is what I would want for Lightwave as well.

But to get to the level of style of clouds I can do in Lightwave, it would take me so much more work and much longer within Houdini, the workflow is as such that it isn´t superior to Lightwave in that regards....in my eyes anyway, but perhaps one day when I know Houdini much more.
The way to work with either sunsky from dpont or physical sky is also way easier than to jump in to houdini´s set of nodes and check light geometry and change color of the skies etc.


For clouds in blender in the same manner as working with larger cubic fields as I often do, it´s not as good as you may think..some guys have made some premade scenes on B forums, but the amount of noise fractals needed to get anything decent is horrible, and it also slows down the renderings substantially, I disected some of that and by removing most of the fractal noises I could get faster renders, but getting a sense of what parameters does what ..that is a vertigo sensation for me with the blender fractals, much easier for me with the lw fractals, but of course one part is that I know those very well.

The bad part ..which prevents for really pushing Lw clouds to where it should be, is the current lack of development and Lack of good, fast GI and lack of Multiple scattering, and further also a way to convect noise staticly like houdini can do ..or displace staticly like blender does.

Though I find the Houdini landscaping terrain tools interesting and exciting, it´s also not so fast to work with unfortunately, may just go with Gaea.

Godrays in Lightwave can be very nice and fun to play around with, now that I understand much more on how to get there, the problem is however it´s just maybe too slow to deal with for my taste, if I could speed it up by a factor of 6-10 perhaps, then maybe..that would require a much faster CPU with this lw version though.
And I would also need a new lw version with better GI multiple scattering when such backlit of clouds are there, some of it should penetrate and scatter better...

Below..this weeks fiddling, just happened to take a snapshot of a draft on one scenes, so not fully refined and noisy, there´s many many more different godray scenes.
That was with the global scattering volumetrics.

Now for blender, it´s global scattering volumetrics I haven´t found to be reliable or getting anything decent from really, probably one should go for octane there and follow Lino´s cloud stuff, though he seem to work in non real scale levels, while I try to work within real scale volumetrics, which means huge cloud scales.

I can´t make these types of scenes below in blender(or houdini) ..yet, but I also can´t make those nice VDB disney cloud asset renders with mulitple light scatter in Lightwave either.
One problem with not having multiple scattering, is that you would need to fake it a bit with lowering the scattering to push the light a bit more in the volume, but if you lower the scattering, the godray effect will not work properly.

Godrays.jpg
 
Last edited:

alexs3d

Member
I am 43, i started with 3D when i was about 17, i saw some 3D Animations on a Rave Party projected by a Beamer on the wall ;) , so i started to a local dealer and found a 3D programm called "monzoom 3d", i mostly did this as a hobby, then i saw the M&M Spots and found out, that this commercial was done in lightwave 3d, so i got addicted to lightwave ;) .
There was a magazin called "digitalproduction" , written in german, in mostly every issue there was an article about lightwave, i cannot remember how often i read this sentence, that for animation was used maya, but for modeling always were used lightwave 3d ;) because at this time, this was the best polygon modeler you can have, i miss those times.

currently i have lightwave 3d 2019...
 

recalling this one...



 

prometheus

REBORN
It doesn't matter how old you are, but what's in your head...

age != experience != knowledge
Well..there´s always a correlation with how old you are and what´s in your head, so No..I would say it matters how old you are.
And when eyesight fails and memory as well, that will become so much clear, and no fetus or any One year old can make renders like a 56 year ol timer.

What matter is your age up to some degree... And what you got in your head.

I´ll take any such comments about age literally to the extremes or as it should be interpreted, what else is an introduction of what is commonly known as ..everyone can do this and that, if you got something in your head, If you have reached a certain age that can cope with it.

This brings us to the main topic, who´s the youngest in here, do we have a toddler running around and a 100 year old Lightwaver?
Makes me think of an old lady here in Sweden that become popular since she started to do blogs at the age of over 100, she´s 109 know but I think she just have moved to elderly care.

Aren´t Lightwave free for kindergarten kids? catch them young before they get too old and start to learn other software, brainwash them to use it before something else, it´s a good marketing strategy :D
 
Last edited:
LW logo tattoo on the wrinkly arm of a 90 year old in a nursing home... that's what I'm waiting for!

The current crop of 80+ year olds still have building ships in a bottle, or making tiny sterling engines as their hobbies/pass times. Eventually this age group will include Star Wars/Star Trek fans and 3D artists... :)
 
Top Bottom