What can't you create?

RPSchmidt

Member
Lightwave doesn´t offer a tool for terrain erosion, blender and houdini does, though blenders landscape erosion tools are slow and tricky to use and perhaps crude, it´s at least something of an attempt to acheive some form of semi good erosions, but I am too newbie on using that tool and need to read up on it, same with Houdini which I believe would do a much better job.

So you are sort of forced to use other tools With Lightwave, while those mentioned may not need to for some basic stuff going on that is.
Additional tools like Gaea and worldmachine etc does those task best though.

Considering what Houdini was designed for at its core (despite what it has grown into), it's no great surprise that it would offer some type of toolset for terrain erosion.

Lightwave is hardly alone in not having native tools for terrain erosion. I think 3ds Max had a script for it a while back, but I don't think it includes a native toolset, even today. Nor Maya, for that matter.

Also, I understand your point... that Lightwave doesn't offer a specific toolset for this purpose... but does it follow that Lightwave can't be used to create it?

Earlier in this thread, another poster talked about the level of difficulty and made comparisons to creating great works in Paint and spoke to the question of why you would use Paint if you had a superior tool.

To a certain extent, that argument is correct; but not necessarily in this context.

For example; if I go through the process of creating erosion in Lightwave, I can guarantee the next time I need to create it, it will take significantly less time to set up because I've established the process. I know what I'm doing and how I can do it.

Each successive time I have to set up the same simulation, the set time will be decreased... it becomes de riguer.

Even when you are given a specific set of tools to design an erosion simulation it doesn't follow that an individual will immediately be successful. The measure of success will depend on their relative familiarity with the tools.

Even robust tools can get odd or poor results.

So tying the original question back to your erosion example, I would say that it is entirely possible to create an erosion simulation in Lightwave.

Is it easier using a different software, especially using one created with this type of simulation in mind (like World Engine)? Most likely it is.
 

PetGerbil

Member
Hi. :)

And he does. And when he does, some Blender proponents complain he does so too aggressively. At the same time, others complain that he is not strict enough. And the moderator, having made his best judgement call, will have another sip of coffee and go back to work.


Nope, sorry - it doesn't work like that. Moderation requires balance, judgement. And as policy, moderation decisions are not subject to public discussion. If you have a problem with a post that you feel breaches forum policy, report the post and your complaint will be evaluated. Neither promotion of competing products nor personal attacks are permitted.
There is only one Blender proponent though, and that proponent is the reason why no one can mention Blender or any other software in this forum. Special threads were made specifically because that proponent couldn't keep it in his trousers about Blender(101 ways to use blender and lightwave). Then another thread was made specifically for talking about competing software (thread to talk about competing software.)
Every time somebody tries to politely hint that maybe the proponent talks about Blender too much, it's all of a sudden "wah wah wah people aren't allowed to discuss..." When, in fact the proponent is the problem, not people or certain users. Him. The proponent, every time, him. Every one else doesn't have a problem talking about competing software, and can manage to be respectful of where they are. Except of course Mr "special" proponent. Everyone has to listen to Mr Special, If it's not Blender, it's "certain competing software that starts with a "B" and is free.(please private message me using Newteks forum software so I can talk you into using Blender!)"

....Annnd, that's how you bend the rules regarding personal attacks. :p
 

TheLexx

Active member
It is worth considering to what extent Blender can be used as a plugin to Lightwave, especially in regard to gpu rendering in place of Octane. Say, to what extent is LW character modeling and animation (inc IKBoost) exportable, and what would be compromises for character hair ? Obviously other criteria, eg architecture, will be of interest to other users... :)
 

SBowie

'the write stuff'
Staff member
As for what we can´t create.

For constructive purpose, it should be a living discussion on where Lightwave does´t cope, and with a mindset of having users argue about the necessity of having such tools and algorithms directly inside of Lightwave in order to acheive that, and if possible developers taking notes and taking a look at what is possible.

So let's discuss this - the ostensible raison d'etre of this thread:
  1. One could raise this question as a friendly challenge: "Let's see what you think isn't possible; maybe someone will say "No, really you can do that - and here's how ..."
  2. Or, perhaps what you offer as your intention - to identify room for improvement.
  3. (Insert other benign reason here.)
Some readers, though, might feel that the above are mere subterfuge, the real motivation bein "Let's call out LW's lacunae to embarrass it, and highlight the merits of competing software." And their reactions might indicate they find that provocative.

There is only one Blender proponent though, and that proponent is the reason why no one can mention Blender or any other software in this forum.

Apparently, you fall into the "It's subterfuge" group. I am more of an optimist, having observed friend Prometheus making a fair effort over time to color between the lines, and take corrective measure when asked.

I could point to numerous examples of those who are no longer with us who were far, far worse when it came to shameless promotion of other apps; who basically rained down endless and nasty crapulence on anyone who dared to offer a different view. Even so, I do regret their loss, since they could have helped inform a healthy discussion ... but I do not miss their arrogant and presumptuous ad hominem attacks. In the main that's why they are no longer with us, rather than any drifting topic-wise.
 

SBowie

'the write stuff'
Staff member
It is worth considering to what extent Blender can be used as a plugin to Lightwave, especially in regard to gpu rendering in place of Octane. Say, to what extent is LW character modeling and animation (inc IKBoost) exportable, and what would be compromises for character hair ? Obviously other criteria, eg architecture, will be of interest to other users... :)
As was mentioned, there's a thread for that.
 

prometheus

REBORN

SBowie

So let's discuss this - the ostensible raison d'etre of this thread:
  1. One could raise this question as a friendly challenge: "Let's see what you think isn't possible; maybe someone will say "No, really you can do that - and here's how ..."
  2. Or, perhaps what you offer as your intention - to identify room for improvement.
  3. (Insert other benign reason here.)
Some readers, though, might feel that the above are mere subterfuge, the real motivation bein "Let's call out LW's lacunae to embarrass it, and highlight the merits of competing software." And their reactions might indicate they find that provocative.


Embaressed by Lightwave shortcoming? well..that says more about individual users over sensivity ..for something they really shouldn´t be shamed about at all, Every software has shortcomings, , though we can recognize we people have feelings of course, but should we go about that philosophy to avoid everything, Lightwave community will never be in a good soil for improving things, but as always, what you say is one thing, how you say it is another thing.

So of course I am aware of users having feelings this way, don´t have them myself..so a certain amount of respect towards that, but at the same time I don´t agree about having that approach ..which I think is doing more harm to any potential discussion around areas that needs to improve, but it´s all a balance I guess.

Some unfortunately take it very personal believing I am here to destroy Lightwave, which can´t be further away from the truth, I want the very best for lightwave and all my wishes is that I someday wake up and see something new is happening around development, not the opposite..those thinking otherwise are Hyped in emotions over the current situation and it also taints their perspective on my intentions, and others as well... when I or they talk about shortcomings or lack of development.

Then there are those for sure that have malicious intent, can´t deny that..and probably because they felt cheated in some way.

I already did the first subject on the list, as a challenge, but that was a bit of steep challenge I knew is probably impossible, but the challenge remains.


As for what we can´t do, which many other 3D general tools also struggle with, blender Cant either really, even if it has a crude erosion tool, Houdini probably better, cinema4d and max, maya I don´t know really.

Terrain erosion stuff, but as mentioned, if such implementation only would reach the level that blender has now, then I am not so sure it is worth implementing it, so many other tools that are more important and these landscape generators fills those voids, even though it means extra cost and learning etc..they are so optimized and fast that it would reuire too much of a development team the size of what vizrt/newtek have had and has right now.

It´s just an example..and we can´t include it to be something that Lightwave can create, it just cant..and same for many other 3D tools.

I need to look in to either Gaea, worldmachine and Terragen to work as a complement with Lightwave and other 3D software for this kind of stuff, neither of the 3 mentioned is right there where I feel it is motivating me to get them so far, but it´s near.

So even if I of course would like to see this kind of tools inside of Lightwave, I don´t think it´s feasable to expect it, and I could argue about the necessity of it as well given it´s there in "third" party software so to speak.

Since I only have the Gaea demo, it´s not the best quality sample, only 1K exr file export.

gaea map 2 lightwave.jpg

 
Last edited:

prometheus

REBORN
Also, I understand your point... that Lightwave doesn't offer a specific toolset for this purpose... but does it follow that Lightwave can't be used to create it?

Well..if we go about that route of logic, what´s the point of the question...it fills no purpose, almost every 3D tool can be used to create anything..if we allow for utilizing other tools.
So no..I don´t follow the Idea of thinking that way, though the question is justified somehow.
It´s just that the main question is so loose in it´s form, it would need a better initial incitament for how to debate around it.
 

PetGerbil

Member
"Some readers, though, might feel that the above are mere subterfuge, the real motivation bein "Let's call out LW's lacunae to embarrass it, and highlight the merits of competing software." And their reactions might indicate they find that provocative."

You haven't understood that sentence. Or perhaps you have ?...

"Embaressed by Lightwave shortcoming? well..that says more about individual users over sensivity ..for something they really shouldn´t be shamed about at all"

Nice barbs. Nearly goes under the radar, but just enough to raise peoples heckles.
 

prometheus

REBORN
"Some readers, though, might feel that the above are mere subterfuge, the real motivation bein "Let's call out LW's lacunae to embarrass it, and highlight the merits of competing software." And their reactions might indicate they find that provocative."

You haven't understood that sentence. Or perhaps you have ?...

"Embaressed by Lightwave shortcoming? well..that says more about individual users over sensivity ..for something they really shouldn´t be shamed about at all"

Nice barbs. Nearly goes under the radar, but just enough to raise peoples heckles.

Unfortunately..I don´t think you have a sober picture of my intents, you taint it with your own perspective, and I give you a motivation unlike your asserted statements,
It´s a shame you can´t regognize where I praise lightwave, where I help out people with lightwave issues etc.

I understood the sentence very well, what are your assertments for that I don´t?

Personally, I can only see you having a severe issue with me, and you are simply to tainted by that and whatever I say...I seems you have an urge to attack on every front wherever I enter a post.

I just don´t get why you fellows are still dragging the illwill and continues to build up the snowball effect towards those you may have found breaking the forum rules, as Sbowie mentioned, just don´t ...it will only carry sediments of personal attack when you do, just report it instead.
 
Last edited:

prometheus

REBORN
I do believe we have a planetary issue somewhere in the universe: I agree with you.
lol
I am seeing some LW thinking in some of the new plugins coming out. Mr. Combs (iirc), a LW luminary, has released a few to ease the LWer in.
As for particle based age, find it and show it to the world. I do not believe it is there.

Maybe I misunderstood something here, do you refer to specific vdb dedicated scatter particles having the particle age settings?
There are the basic particle age info, both natively and from dpkit...

particle age nodes.jpg
 

PetGerbil

Member
Unfortunately..I don´t think you have a sober picture of my intents, you taint it with your own perspective, and I give you a motivation unlike your asserted statements,
It´s a shame you can´t regognize where I praise lightwave, where I help out people with lightwave issues etc.

I understood the sentence very well, what are your assertments for that I don´t?

Personally, I can only see you having a severe issue with me, and you are simply to tainted by that and whatever I say...I seems you have an urge to attack on every front wherever I enter a post.

I just don´t get why you fellows are still dragging the illwill and continues to build up the snowball effect towards those you may have found breaking the forum rules, as Sbowie mentioned, just don´t ...it will only carry sediments of personal attack when you do, just report it instead.
"Unfortunately..I don´t think you have a sober picture of my intents" - Are you saying that I'm drunk ?

"you taint it with your own perspective" - I do tend to "taint" things with my own perspective, I find it's better than tainting my opinions with other peoples perspectives.

" I give you a motivation unlike your asserted statement" - Um, sorry. Don't understand.
"Personally, I can only see you having a severe issue with me, and you are simply to tainted by that and whatever I say...I seems you have an urge to attack on every front wherever I enter a post."

-Or, I'm just putting this out there as an idea....Your posts contain an excessive amount of Blender, and I mean WAAAAAAAYYY too much.

You could counter my argument with lots of "yeah,but I sometimes mention LW!!" But I'll leave with this question for everyone. "You know that bloke who is always banging on about Blender ?" If the answer is "Yes, (insert user name here) " Then perhaps that user should take a step back and ask themselves "Do I talk about Blender too much..?"
 

prometheus

REBORN
"Unfortunately..I don´t think you have a sober picture of my intents" - Are you saying that I'm drunk ?

"you taint it with your own perspective" - I do tend to "taint" things with my own perspective, I find it's better than tainting my opinions with other peoples perspectives.

" I give you a motivation unlike your asserted statement" - Um, sorry. Don't understand.
"Personally, I can only see you having a severe issue with me, and you are simply to tainted by that and whatever I say...I seems you have an urge to attack on every front wherever I enter a post."

-Or, I'm just putting this out there as an idea....Your posts contain an excessive amount of Blender, and I mean WAAAAAAAYYY too much.

You could counter my argument with lots of "yeah,but I sometimes mention LW!!" But I'll leave with this question for everyone. "You know that bloke who is always banging on about Blender ?" If the answer is "Yes, (insert user name here) " Then perhaps that user should take a step back and ask themselves "Do I talk about Blender too much..?"

I´m sorry, my conversation with you ends here and now, if you can´t figure out what I mean by sober..which you of course should know can be attributed to something else than "drunk" which I didn´t mean, but then I am just sorry for you..you should know this and probably do, but care more about clinging on to that in a contra attack in the discussion to focus on that it sounds bad, but it´s just that, It´s my personal view on that you do not get the whole picture, it is not complete, similar to state of illusion, dream, nausy, drunkiness etc.

Now all that you do of course know.

As for blender, you just add to the snowball, both in continue the completely pointless complaints about my postings, as well as continue a bad a mood in discussions.
And I really don´t care How many times I mention blender, as long as I am not promoting it, or go too off topic, now I sugges you go back to all the postings you follow me by, and count and study where I bash blender..which I do from time to time in relation to where Lightwave does it better., if we are to study where the name " blender is mentioned" you and others are just as guilty as me.

Now I should scream like Mel Gibson in lethal weapon after getting loose from his torture," who´s next" who´s gonna mention B,,,again, and keep rolling that snowball ..over and over.

So that´s it, spare your response, cause the next answer from you will probably not be answered by anyway, we can´t have a constructive discussion you and I.
It´s better for the users of this forum and you and me that we focus on other things that this debate, if you have an issue, don´t argue with me, report it as Sbowie said.
 
Last edited:

prometheus

REBORN
So tying the original question back to your erosion example, I would say that it is entirely possible to create an erosion simulation in Lightwave.

Is it easier using a different software, especially using one created with this type of simulation in mind (like World Engine)? Most likely it is.

My challenge wasn´t about creating something that looks like an erosion, it needs to reach 70% or something to the level of terrain generators.
As for you stating it is possible, perhaps..I can´t see it done by displacment based on textures and procedurals though, I could think of letting particles flow down terrain surface and extract maps from that for instance, but I haven´t done that fully.

With the vdb tools there may be new interesting options if you let it flow down terrain as well, and do remeshing perhaps, but may be cumbersome to do, interesting idea perhaps.

So do you have the time to share a bit about your workflow, if it´s not a trade secret, just loosely?
 

UnCommonGrafx

Wandering about
Great catch. I don't believe that works as needed, though. I would have to do research I don't care about to make my point. Look back where this post was: why was this mentioned?

Maybe I misunderstood something here, do you refer to specific vdb dedicated scatter particles having the particle age settings?
There are the basic particle age info, both natively and from dpkit...

View attachment 149909
 

prometheus

REBORN
Great catch. I don't believe that works as needed, though. I would have to do research I don't care about to make my point. Look back where this post was: why was this mentioned?
Somewhere erikals mentioned he didn´t believe there was a particle age control for vdb fluid particles, you also jumped in somewhere where I said I think there is one..you wanted me to show it, thus the screenshots.

Now how well or if at all it can be used properly as it should with the VDB fluids, do not know...I haven´t had that much interest in the VDB fluids really, Lightwave Guru should answer on that since he seems to know that quite well, and not me really.
 

RPSchmidt

Member
Well..if we go about that route of logic, what´s the point of the question...it fills no purpose, almost every 3D tool can be used to create anything..if we allow for utilizing other tools.
So no..I don´t follow the Idea of thinking that way, though the question is justified somehow.
It´s just that the main question is so loose in it´s form, it would need a better initial incitament for how to debate around it.

The main question is very loose, indeed.

I believe the OP's point was that Lightwave is as suitable as practically any other 3d application. And as you said here, it's essentially an "all things being equal" situation, i.e., "almost every 3d tool can be used to create anything".

I think we can agree that all current 3d applications have their quirks and shortfalls... and so, all things being equal, Lightwave is as useful as practically any other 3d application.

My challenge wasn´t about creating something that looks like an erosion, it needs to reach 70% or something to the level of terrain generators.
As for you stating it is possible, perhaps..I can´t see it done by displacment based on textures and procedurals though, I could think of letting particles flow down terrain surface and extract maps from that for instance, but I haven´t done that fully.

With the vdb tools there may be new interesting options if you let it flow down terrain as well, and do remeshing perhaps, but may be cumbersome to do, interesting idea perhaps.

I wish I had more time to really follow up on the various experiments and things that I would like to do, especially in areas like this.

In my mind, I see erosion employing a combination of fracture, bullet dynamics, weight maps, VDB, and particles. It's just something that I would have to experiment with to actually pull together and I never seem to have the time for that.

So do you have the time to share a bit about your workflow, if it´s not a trade secret, just loosely?

As far as my workflow, I do a lot of visualization work; sometimes that means creating environments, sometimes vehicles or specific buildings or structures, sometimes it means simulations. It really depends on what the client wants to see.

Generally, I use Lightwave for modelling and rendering, although I've been using Blender for modeling a lot recently due to work considerations.

For Lightwave, I have LWCad, TreesDesigner, QuadPanels, and Shiftkeys+ for plugins. I also have 3d Coat for UV and texturing, although I tend to only use it on high-detail models. Otherwise, I use PBR materials from different sources and map them to my needs. I support TextureHaven / HDRIHaven and use their materials a lot. I also have credits on various texture sites.

When necessary, I generate my own PBR materials using Photoshop. I usually start with an image for the base, whatever it is, and create my maps from that base. It's not as fast, but it enables me to get the result I'm looking for.

In my simulation work, I generally do all of my modeling and dynamics in Lightwave, then export an MDD to other programs for particle simulations like explosions, smoke, fire, and water. Sometimes that means passing them off to another artist, but sometimes I end up doing it myself.

I have generally used Blender for those effects.... it does a great job using the MDD files from Lightwave and of course, I get the advantage of a faster render if I need it. However, I am considering Embergen for smoke / fire / explosions and a native VDB solution for fluids once I get more time to learn the extent of VDBs in LW.

I have used Trapcode in the past for simple particle effects, but it just became far too expensive to continue using. $599 a year / $50 a month for a suite of what are essentially plugins? No, thanks. Add in that they are now owned by Maxon.

I purchased Superluminal Stardust and I am in the process of learning it. It's pretty robust and has dynamic and volume interactions with 3d objects, so I am looking forward to seeing how much it can speed up my workflow overall. Plus, the benefit of costing significantly less and lifetime upgrades.

Who knows, if I can learn enough about VDBs in Lightwave, I may just stay native for everything. I have barely scratched the surface of VDBs.. I mean, only the tiniest bit of playing around.

I have zero Houdini experience... it's another in a very long list of software that I would like to learn. Luckily it hasn't been a necessity for me in my career.

I use After Effects as my primary compositing program. I've just been using it for a very long time and I'm familiar with it, so for my workflow, it's easier and quicker.

For some simple animations, I will create the models and animate them in Lightwave, and then export an object sequence to Element3d in After Effects for rapid compositing and render. It's very fast and the results are excellent. I also use Element3d if I am doing a simple composite with camera tracking... like adding a sign, vehicle, etc., to existing footage.

I have done 3d camera tracking in AE and exported it to Lightwave using AELink, but not very often. I can usually get what I need from compositing using AE and Element3d.

I guess in the end, my workflow really depends on what the client wants, how much or little detail they want, if they need animation, compositing, or just a static render, and whether they need a simulation or not.
 

prometheus

REBORN
The main question is very loose, indeed.

I believe the OP's point was that Lightwave is as suitable as practically any other 3d application. And as you said here, it's essentially an "all things being equal" situation, i.e., "almost every 3d tool can be used to create anything".

I think we can agree that all current 3d applications have their quirks and shortfalls... and so, all things being equal, Lightwave is as useful as practically any other 3d application.



I wish I had more time to really follow up on the various experiments and things that I would like to do, especially in areas like this.

In my mind, I see erosion employing a combination of fracture, bullet dynamics, weight maps, VDB, and particles. It's just something that I would have to experiment with to actually pull together and I never seem to have the time for that.



As far as my workflow, I do a lot of visualization work; sometimes that means creating environments, sometimes vehicles or specific buildings or structures, sometimes it means simulations. It really depends on what the client wants to see.

Generally, I use Lightwave for modelling and rendering, although I've been using Blender for modeling a lot recently due to work considerations.

For Lightwave, I have LWCad, TreesDesigner, QuadPanels, and Shiftkeys+ for plugins. I also have 3d Coat for UV and texturing, although I tend to only use it on high-detail models. Otherwise, I use PBR materials from different sources and map them to my needs. I support TextureHaven / HDRIHaven and use their materials a lot. I also have credits on various texture sites.

When necessary, I generate my own PBR materials using Photoshop. I usually start with an image for the base, whatever it is, and create my maps from that base. It's not as fast, but it enables me to get the result I'm looking for.

In my simulation work, I generally do all of my modeling and dynamics in Lightwave, then export an MDD to other programs for particle simulations like explosions, smoke, fire, and water. Sometimes that means passing them off to another artist, but sometimes I end up doing it myself.

I have generally used Blender for those effects.... it does a great job using the MDD files from Lightwave and of course, I get the advantage of a faster render if I need it. However, I am considering Embergen for smoke / fire / explosions and a native VDB solution for fluids once I get more time to learn the extent of VDBs in LW.

I have used Trapcode in the past for simple particle effects, but it just became far too expensive to continue using. $599 a year / $50 a month for a suite of what are essentially plugins? No, thanks. Add in that they are now owned by Maxon.

I purchased Superluminal Stardust and I am in the process of learning it. It's pretty robust and has dynamic and volume interactions with 3d objects, so I am looking forward to seeing how much it can speed up my workflow overall. Plus, the benefit of costing significantly less and lifetime upgrades.

Who knows, if I can learn enough about VDBs in Lightwave, I may just stay native for everything. I have barely scratched the surface of VDBs.. I mean, only the tiniest bit of playing around.

I have zero Houdini experience... it's another in a very long list of software that I would like to learn. Luckily it hasn't been a necessity for me in my career.

I use After Effects as my primary compositing program. I've just been using it for a very long time and I'm familiar with it, so for my workflow, it's easier and quicker.

For some simple animations, I will create the models and animate them in Lightwave, and then export an object sequence to Element3d in After Effects for rapid compositing and render. It's very fast and the results are excellent. I also use Element3d if I am doing a simple composite with camera tracking... like adding a sign, vehicle, etc., to existing footage.

I have done 3d camera tracking in AE and exported it to Lightwave using AELink, but not very often. I can usually get what I need from compositing using AE and Element3d.

I guess in the end, my workflow really depends on what the client wants, how much or little detail they want, if they need animation, compositing, or just a static render, and whether they need a simulation or not.

As for the route of erosions, what you describe, sure a bit interesting...but I think it seems to be a process that takes too long time, both to get the grips on, and to execute with fracture and simulation with vdb, and if you use fracture, you would have to freeze the mesh and can´t use subdiv patches to raise resolution in conjuction with bitmaps..if needed, so I think I will at least not even experiment with that, One though would otherwise to use particles to flow over terrain surface, then use particle paint to retrive a color splat map, which you coudl bake out maybe, and use as an erosion displacement map.

But that said, such particle flow over a terrain initially, will not be anywhere near the algoritms calculated by Gaea or Worldmachine, which has mathematics based on the real erosion behavior, to get particles to acheive something near that level...forget it.

As for houdini, has some nice stuff, if you want to use vdb (smoke volumes) from Lightwave in there, you need to drop in a volume vizualiser to see the vdb file in houdini, the other way around is easier, pretty much everything you do there with clouds, fire and smoke, vdb fluid simulation seem to work nicely to export out to lightwave, even painting in volume by brushes.
 
Top Bottom