Why LightWave Normals are wrong? (Solved)

[prometheus]

If you make different models, you get different renders...

not only that..the renderers is different...shouldnt be a surprise..weather or not one is more accurate than the other can of course be discussed.

but models need to be without flaws in the first place....Before you can argue wether one is doing it right..or wrong.
and ti add to that...differen models.

and in this case the models arent without flaws.

triangulated they are..still dont know why that was needed.

subpatch surface modeling is nice..but for this kind of simple models..not completely necessary.

one thing to keep in mind though.
subpatch modeling allows you to render out very large prints and with smooth edges..since its easy to adjust subpatch render resolution in layout...hard surface model types do not..unless you set rounding and shape resolution very high from scratch.

If you compare that to a hard surface modeling type..where you would have to go back to the model and try and subdivide again..on a model with rounding facets..thats not going to be nice.

so close ups and blown up large scale of the object..better to use subpatch modeling.

Then you have the CAD pipeline..working with other modeling software types in lightwave.trying to convert to subpatch modeling will be difficult...there you prabably want to keep the hard surface structure.

 

[prometheus]

Maybe you missed the point let me explain "Lightwave normals are not easy to render if you used Lightwave for modeling and rendering for low poly models without subd or using a normal map because LW can't handle normals like blender."

nope..dont think so..
when you model in ligthtwave..as you refer to..
you do not need a normal map..or a vertex normal at all to render the type of models you have..not even if they are low res.

its taken care of with the basic smoothing options..no need for a normal correction.

subpatch modeling do not handle normals differently..it just add geometry interpolation per display or render settings.

As for working with normal (vertex maps) ..it is mostly useful for when you have set your smoothing values in another software and want´s to maintain it there, have you created the model in Lightwave, there is no need for such thing, they work in Tandem if using multiple apps, or if not, just use the smoothing options provided in their respective surface or vertex controller.
so you are only in use of it if you need to bake the smoothing settings in to the model when used in another software.

Vertex normal maps work in tandem with the smoothing function to shade polygons as either faceted or smooth. A vertex normal map is a map with the values of the Smoothing setting baked into the vertices. Most often, you generate vertex normal maps in an external CAD package when converting a NURBS-based model to polygons.

 

[quakebox]

No I shouldn't make another model, all I need is a vertex map for the normals and Lightwave doesn't generate this internaly I have to use an external app.

 

[prometheus]

No I shouldn't make another model, all I need is a vertex map for the normals and Lightwave doesn't generate this internaly I have to use an external app.

Again, read my quote in post 62,
If you have created the model in Lightwave, And wants to render in Lightwave..
you Do Not Need a vertex map for the normals, you set your smoothing overall by it´s surface smoothing angle, or select and assign difference smoothing groups for different parts on the model.

So I just don´t get it why you persist on this?
A normal vertex map is of no use unless you have set that in another software.
So No..you don´t need a map at all.

If the normals is wrong, it´s geometry errors..as you have in your models, or facing the wrong direction..whic should be handled by correctin normals unify etc.

 

[quakebox]

@prometheus I modeled this model in Lightwave yet I got black corners please don't forget this fact.

The process is like this model in Lightwave export to blender add vertex group, add weighted normal modifier, apply then export as obj the vertex normal map will be exported then you can import to lightwave. (This model was modeled in Lightwave then sent to blender then to Lightwave)

No Vertex Map

Vertex Map exported from Blender

This thread is solved

 

[Sensei]

Similar object to your "L":
1 rounding polygon:

3 rounding polygons (still visible some problems)

6 rounding polygons:

 

[prometheus]

@prometheus I modeled this model in Lightwave yet I got black corners please don't forget this fact.

The process is like this model in Lightwave export to blender add vertex group, add weighted normal modifier, apply then export as obj the vertex normal map will be exported then you can import to lightwave. (This model was modeled in Lightwave then sent to blender then to Lightwave)

View attachment 154835
No Vertex Map


View attachment 154836
Vertex Map exported from Blender

This thread is solved

You really didn´t solve anything
you just made a more unnecessary complicated workflow including vertex maps, which you don´t need in the first place.
Again refering to previous info, you use the vertex normal maps to follow along with the smoothing settings you have set in another software, Not when you work
with the model and render in the same software, unless it´s part of assigning different smoothing weighting per edges, faces etc, but that you do with smoothing groups, in Lightwave, and weighted normal modifier in blender for instance.

What you show as above as bad openGL display of the normals, ( not sure why you use the openGL display and not rendered here?)

I have no idea how you managed to get a simple model to look bad like that when (rendered in lightwave) or in openGL display.
I can´t see the mesh topology, you could assign the model it for study as you did previously.

Instead of just In Lightwave setting the smoothing angles right per the whole object, or per smoothing assigned groups, you are taking more steps to send it to blender assign weight modifiing for that vertex groups, then export it back to lightwave with that map, where you in the first place woulnd´t need to do that At All.

If you post that model, I will show you how to render it correctly in lightwave..provided you don´t have error geometry as last time.

And the process you described before isn´t the process you took now( you modeled one in blender, on in Lightwave, then rendered out in respective programs, but it doesn´t matter..you are overdoing it all ..Still.

You may have an argument, Should you go in to which software can adress setting smoothing groups the best, wether you do that in blender, or assigning smoothing groups in Lightwave, but that is a different story.

 

[Sensei]

I cleaned up mesh to remove unneeded polygons,
and selected top "L",
used Smoothing Info window to assign "1" group.

Selected side polygons facing the same direction in pairs and new group. Repeated a couple times with the rest:

 

[Sensei]

The version without cleanup after Rounder, just Smoothing groups:

 

[quakebox]

The version without cleanup after Rounder, just Smoothing groups:
View attachment 154845

This method is not so clean you will notice some seams.

 

[Shabazzy]

@prometheus I modeled this model

Badly

in Lightwave yet I got black corners please don't forget this fact.

If your modelling skills are poor, then LightWave will expose them.

This thread is solved

Is it though?

It seems to me that the old adage, "It's a poor workman who blames his tools", is quite fitting here.

 

[prometheus]

This method is not so clean you will notice some seams.

Make it cleaner in the first place

Smoothing groups information..(LIGHTWAVE DOCUMENTATION!!)
Smoothing Groups - LightWave 2019 (lightwave3d.com)

Part1...

 

[quakebox]

Badly

If your modelling skills are poor, then LightWave will expose them.

Is it though?

It seems to me that the old adage, "It's a poor workman who blames his tools", is quite fitting here.

No the model is was ok then why the blender model looks just fine and lightwave not? it's because of the normal problem.

Creating dozens of smoothing groups is not the solution, a vertex map is.

 

[prometheus]

No the model is was ok then why the blender model looks just fine and lightwave not? it's because of the normal problem.

quakebox, with all respect, but you are just confusing yourself as well as us by not defining properly where you modeled your stuff, or how you describe the model in this case.
What do you mean by the blender model looks just fine, the model you created in blender, or the lightwave model you opened in blender?

An the blender model created in blender sent to lightwave and not looking fine?, or the lightwave model created in lightwave and rendered in lightwave not looking fine.
Sorry but there is no focused consistent description here on how you work with all this.

simple smoothing assignment in Lightwave( for a model you create Clean in Lightwave) ..
You can just use "i" open the statisticspanel when you are in polygon mode, select your polys of interest, make sure to click edit all button in the statistic panel, assign it to a group, and you will see those become smoothed, and the none selected None smoothed.

 

[quakebox]

quakebox, with all respect, but you are just confusing yourself as well as us by not defining properly where you modeled your stuff, or how you describe the model in this case.
What do you mean by the blender model looks just fine, the model you created in blender, or the lightwave model you opened in blender?

An the blender model created in blender sent to lightwave and not looking fine?, or the lightwave model created in lightwave and rendered in lightwave not looking fine.
Sorry but there is no focused consistent description here on how you work with all this.

simple smoothing assignment in Lightwave( for a model you create Clean in Lightwave) ..
You can just use "i" open the statisticspanel when you are in polygon mode, select your polys of interest, make sure to click edit all button in the statistic panel, assign it to a group, and you will see those become smoothed, and the none selected None smoothed.

View attachment 154847

I told you all the blender model was modeled in blender and Lightwave model was in lightwave. the last model was in lw corrcted in blender.

 

[quakebox]

Guys I don't say LW is bad I just want to say if you bevel the edges there will be some kind of normal problem can't be corrected with smoothing groups you need to use some kind of normal map or subd, if the topology is not subd friendly send to blender then back to LW.

 

[prometheus]

I told you all the blender model was modeled in blender and Lightwave model was in lightwave. the last model was in lw corrcted in blender.

Still confusing.
All blender modelel was modeled in blender and lightwave models in lightwave, says nothing unless you put them in to testing context, where did you render the blender models, only in blender? or did you render blender models in Lightwave?
and the same for the Lightwave models.

 

[Shabazzy]

No the model is was ok

If that were true, why then did those who examined at your handiwork all say it was built badly?

Could it be that they actually know how create geometry properly and you don't?

And if you don't know how to create proper geometry, how then could you possibly be qualified to know if it's ok or not?

 

[quakebox]

If that were true, why then did those who examined at your handiwork all say it was built badly?

Could it be that they actually know how create geometry properly and you don't?

And if you don't know how to create proper geometry, how then could you possibly be qualified to know if it's ok or not?

I know how to model correct topology stop with this dilemma the model was correct I challenge you to model a beveled hard-surface object in Lightwave without having black corners maybe you can't see them because you don't focus on them.

 

[prometheus]

I know how to model correct topology stop with this dilemma the model was correct I challenge you to model a beveled hard-surface object in Lightwave without having black corners maybe you can't see them because you don't focus on them.

I just did that in my early post.
Your models had a lot of errors ..which I also did show, overlapping, holes in polys, flipped wrong ways, unecsseary tripling, so no. with respect and kindness...I think you miss a bit in "modeling correctly"

And you didn´t test the same models in the first place initialy, but had two different models.

the weight normal modifier in blendermay have some slight better options for determine smoothess, but can´t tell how much of difference really, if you use flat no smoothing on one surfaces, and smooth on rounded surfaces, there may be a sharp facet distinction, this sharp distinction is by either full surface smoothing on all those surfaces ..corrected to smooth out depending on angle in Lightwave. or if you use the blender normal modifier that is.

check post 25 for beveled geometry, and that looks great without any dark edges, check post 38 for a reminder of your geometry being faulty, and not very suitable to render, with such destroyed edges on the beveling thanks to tripling.

Again..you are not blind to the guides I hope, as I told you before, but you didn´t recognize it, the flipped polys, normals going the wrong direction on the upper poly here.
This is your model..not mine, and look at those rounded edges that are destroyed thanks to your tripling, and check the mess in the middle of those polys, overlapping and all..I told you you had not the right rounding settings, if you don´t..those artifacts can be the result.