PDA

View Full Version : MODO: Q&A with Brad Peebler


Pages : [1] 2 3

SheepFactory
01-09-2004, 10:57 PM
Hi Everyone ,

Me and Mdme Sadie were at macworld this morning and we had a lenghty presentation of Modo from Brad Peebler. Brad was kind enough to answer all your questions , so here goes:


- What file formats it can adress?

File I/O is handled via an extensible data exchange system. The initial release of modo will support the formats of the most popular animation systems and a few other useful formats.

- Also how long till modo goes GM?

Because software development is a very fluid process , we'll only announce a concrete shipping date when we have one. Luxology understands that many people like to know approximately when the software will be released so they can make informed purchase decisions , however , we feel it is a disservice to those customers to project a date that may (and most likely will) change as the program evolves.

- Are there any real Nurbs and solid modelling features?

No. While the modo architechture is extensible and allows for new geometry types to be added , we believe that focus is our best approach. Modo r1 is designed to be a highly focused , extensible subd platform.

- Does modo have Symmetry modeling features?

Symmetry is possible on the X , Y or Z axis.

- Local and World cordinates?

The tool operation axis is part of the "tool pipe" in modo which means it can be changed on the fly , as well as having new coordinate systems added by 3rd parties.

- Are all modelling tools interactive? Like Arrays , Clone , Rail Extrudes , etc.

Yes.

- Does it show TRUE transparency? and not like LW "doted" transparency.

Yes.

- Does it have construction history?

Modo has a command history , which will allow users to undo/redo through their modelling session. Modo also utilizes a new convention called the "Tool Pipe". This will allow the user to combine tools with various tool modifiers to create live editable custom tools. this approach allows us provide maximum flexibility and power without suffering the weight of a complete construction history.

- Does it have Endomorphs like Lightwave?

Modo will support LW endomorphs and has some nifty tools for editing them. Also , modo will convert Maya blendshapes into embedded morphs for editing inside modo to provide the editing benefits of "endomorphs" to Maya users.

- Does it have Spline editing tools?

Yes.

- How do booleans perform?

Modo booleans can generate ngons which work fine with modo subpatches. However , there are methods for modyfying these to quads for safe export to systems that do not support N-gon subpatches.

- UV construction , are they more power and friendly like in Maya?

Yes.

- Can we have two windows , one showing the model in sub-d mode and the other in poly mode ala XSI?

Not currently , but thats a good request!

- When will the fist module be released? This year or next?

Modo will certainly be released inside 2004. Keep your eyes on www.luxology.net for more specific information as it becomes available.

- How much of the LW modeller code reside in modo?

Modo was written from the ground up to make certain it would benefit from the most up to date development tools (such as Xcode) and allow us to create a far more extensible system than was previously available.

- How is the viewport performance?

As in most software applications , the final stage is one of bug fixes and optimization. rest assured that edit speed is one of our highest priorities.

- OPENGL? DirectX? Quality? Speed?

The 3d drawing in modo is currently OpenGL with support for vertex and fragment shaders for extensibility and advance modelling views. Due to the generic and open architechture of modo viewports , it is possible for game companies (or third parties) to create their own viewport and use any drawing system they like.

- PC / Mac / Linux comparisons (pros/cons)

We have officially announced support for OS X and windows. Luxology uses a unique propretiary development toolkit that allows concurrent platform development. %95 or more of the source code is written in a platform generic manner so that the application is identical across platforms. It is also designed to allow each platform version to utilize specific technologies on the target platform so that , for example , we can take advantage of technologies such as Quartz Extreme on OS X , etc. This toolkit is one of our most valued pieces of intellectual property.

- Does modo have a surface editor?

Yes. The modo surface editor is intentionally rather basic allowing the user to add and edit material properties such as image maps and basic material attributes. This design allows us to connect to many different 3d host applications where it is more appropriate for advanced texturing , such as procedural textures , as those systems would provide the rendering services.

- Are Plug-ins possible?

Absolutely. In fact , many of our included tools utilize the same API's that will be provided to 3rd party developers. The modo architechture provides interfaces for C++ and C. The modo scripting engine has a direct link to PERL via a thin layer interpreter. This scripting interpreter can also be replaced so that modo scripting can be connected to other popular scripting systems such as Python , etc.

- Is there any indicator of the number of selected poly/points like in Lightwave Modeller?

Yes.

- Can we customize the colors of the Interface?

Yes.

- If I load a Lightwave object for example , will modo subpatch it noticably different than Lightwave or is the result same?

The modo subdivision surface engine is also extensible and can be replaced by third parties. In modo r1 we have included 2 subdivision algorithms. The default modo subd engine is designed to support ngons and edge weighting. The alternate subd engine is visually identical to the Lightwave 3d engine. This allows the user to model in that style , or simply use it to check for artifacts prior to export.

- When can we expect the animation portion to be released?

There has been no announcement about an animation system or module. Modo is designed to connect to the existing 3d pipeline applications , just as messiah or Motionbuilder provides augemented animation functionality to other programs , modo is designed to augment the modelling process.

- What rendering engine will it use? (or will it be custom?)

Modo connects to any rendering system that connects to the same host application. In other words , if you use modo with Lightwave you would use the Lightwave render engine , if you use modo with Motionbuilder and Mental ray , I suppose you would be using Mental Ray.

- Will there be a painting module in the texture editor?

Not in r1.

- Will there be any cross grade pricing for existing owners of Lightwave , Maya , XSI , etc.

Because of the number of years we spent in the Lightwave community , there will be a "friends and family" upgrade price for Lightwave end users , including a special bonus for users of Lightwave 8.

What are the minimum and recommended sytem requirements to run modo?

System requirements will not be determined or announced until the application has reached GM and has been properly evaluated on a myriad of systems.

- What are some of the coolest/innovative tools modo offers (aside from the fully customizable UI)?

We'll keep these secret until we are close to the release date. No point in tipping off the competition.

- Will modo be able to do brush modelling like in Z-brush?

There are some "brushing" tools in modo.

- Does it have tablet support?

Modo supports alternate input devices.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Hope you guys liked it.

Cheers ,
Ali

roger
01-09-2004, 11:07 PM
Sheep Factory - What was yours and Mdme Sadie impressions of Modo now that Brad was showing it?

mjm
01-09-2004, 11:08 PM
Nice job, Sheep. Thanks for doing the interview and writing it up. Good stuff :)

Sounds pretty interesting.

SibSpi
01-09-2004, 11:08 PM
Thank you from all the donkey-holes out there :applause:

I just wanne see this program in action - I doubt I'll be converting - but I still wanne see it.

And I'll be DAMNED if Pixar/Blizzard North decide to change their programs to Modo!

loopdreamz
01-09-2004, 11:14 PM
Hmm, sounds pretty mediocre to me, and kinda reeks of LW in its reliance on 3rd party plug-ins for some basic expected features. ONe good thing though, is that they aren't being like Newtek in their handling of launch dates. I've been burned twice by Newtek with LW in regards to that (versions 4 & 6) and never again.

SheepFactory
01-09-2004, 11:14 PM
On a side note ,

Brad said he'll be making some new videos to show modo in action which will be coming out pretty soon , so stay tuned to www.luxology.net

I'll write a short review of what I thought about it (which is quite different than my last one) as soon as my wrist stops hurting :) , I just typed all this stuff lemme rest a bit guys :P

Ali

Nando
01-09-2004, 11:15 PM
Sheep

Thanks for the Info

Sounds like a good option to the other packages that are also developing open bridges/connections to any app whether its animation or Rendering.
My wish list of connectable apps Modo, Messiah, Brazil :D

Would like modo to be out soon like everybody else though :/

CIM
01-09-2004, 11:16 PM
Modo sounds like it's going to be great. :)

Thx. for doing the interview, Sheepy.

leigh
01-09-2004, 11:22 PM
Really interesting stuff, Sheep :)

Per-Anders
01-09-2004, 11:34 PM
thoughts on modo huh... hmm. well i have to admit i went along feeling fairly skeptical to begin with, but after the demo and explanations given i really do think Lux are taking this the right way, and they explained why all the vids about the interface.

basically they're taking the route of creating an extensible architecture that just happens for the start to be a subd modeler. in essense it's an OS, and they've then supplied the parts that make up what appears to be a pretty solid subd modeler.

imo this is a very wise move, it essentially means that any third party or indeed luxology themselves could add in bits to make a compositor, add in animation stuff, you name it... build in a render engine... anything. it also by it's very nature makes this a pipeline tool which is where it's niche will most likely be.

the focus on this being an OS also explains why all the videos were about the interface rather than the modeling in modo, though they never really got the point accross imo in those vids.

the real trouble for modo is the profusion of modelers out there right now, even if modo takes all the best bits from all over it's still going to have a tough time if they concentrate on that side marketing wise rather than on the pipeline aspect, but then again price comes into that equation too. we'll see if any studios pick it up.

to put it another way, Modo looks really nice, it has the potential it could become another industry standard app, just because of it's extensibility. But it will have a hard time breaking in via the modeling route imo (and that's regardless of how good a modeler it is, and it does look like it's a good one).

Zithen
01-10-2004, 12:29 AM
Thanks Sheep for the info.

I just got re-excited about Luxology. I only wish they had their whole suite ready, rather than just the modeler. But I think their 3d OS innovation is wonderful.
Talk about dropping the ball, whoever let Allen and Stuart go to create this technology was not very wise IMO.

Beamtracer
01-10-2004, 12:38 AM
It's interesting that Luxology decided to do a total rewrite of the modeling program, considering that Lux's Stuart Ferguson owned the code of Lightwave's modeler (if you look, the copyright notice is on LW Modeler's info box).

The extensibility will make MODO much more appealing to the major studios than most other modeling packages out there. I guess this is one of the benefits of rewriting the package.

Rewriting also would have given them the option to write the Mac version in the "objective-C" programming language, but it seems like they didn't, if both Windows and Mac version come "95%" from the same code base.

Thanks for the interview, Sheep. You did a better job and asked more relevant questions than most 3D magazines would have!

Sil3
01-10-2004, 12:56 AM
Thanks Sheep :beer:

gruvsyco
01-10-2004, 01:01 AM
Thanks Sheep and mdme,

That was a great interview.

raducoc
01-10-2004, 01:27 AM
For Sheep Factory

Offtopic: Your avatar is werry avesome.:thumbsup:
I want a bigger picture with it. If is possible please link or PM.:beer:

SheepFactory
01-10-2004, 01:31 AM
regarding the UV tools and Brush tools ala Zbrush:

the uv editor was pretty nice looking , all the modo tools can be used to modify uv's such as falloff tools , move points , dragnet etc. There was a really nice relax tool , which Brad said will be interactive in the final release. But even in the current release he layed out the UV's of a face in no time.

The brush tools are not as comprehensive as Zbrush , which is not a handycap in my opinion , Z-brush excels in brush technology and Modo excels as a sub-d modeller. The included brush tools are your regular push\pull\smooth\etc type brushes.

Also the interface customizability is real nice. You can scrap the whole UI and have a Maya Hotbox type workflow. only its more customizable and prettier looking than the maya hotbox :)

Overall I was really impressed with what Brad showed us and I am sure most of you will be too after seeing a proper demonstration. Those videos that came out so far does not do justice.

Cheers ,
Ali

Rumors
01-10-2004, 01:35 AM
Thanks for the Q&A. Some informative answers. I appreciate you guys taking the time to ask them all.

ages
01-10-2004, 01:39 AM
I wonder if Modo will have a function that u can launch it instead of modeler in layout, like alternate the F12 shortcut?!

ripLEE
01-10-2004, 01:44 AM
:)

Ibox
01-10-2004, 03:17 AM
Ok, sounds good thus far, but... which will be the more intuitive modeler to use, Wings3D or Modo? Personally due to the fact that I am not employed in the industry thus not utilizing some far out pipeline it all comes down to which is the better modeler to crank out some poly critters and like... I am thinking that should it be as good as say C4D c/w Mesh Surgery along with NGon support then yahoo, but should it not be as powerful in the ole boxmodeling as C4D+ms then, well, back to Wings unless perhaps Clay comes along to dethrone all above mentioned...

What's your take on this Sheep? Mdme Sadie?

oxyg3n
01-10-2004, 03:47 AM
I am glad that I found this article. I just heard of modo a few days ago and had no clue what it was. This was very informative.

Beamtracer
01-10-2004, 03:51 AM
Originally posted by Ibox
Personally due to the fact that I am not employed in the industry thus not utilizing some far out pipeline it all comes down to which is the better modeler to crank out some poly critters and like.
You may not use some features, but they can be important to you anyway.

MODO's pipeline and extensibility are good examples. Most users won't be interested in rewriting the code in this way. But the studios will.

But most users would like to find a job in the industry, and it's easier to find a job if the studios are using the same software as you.

Some other 3D software applications (no name mentioned) are being dropped by studios because of the lack of extensibility. See what I mean?

What's also interesting about the Luxology set up, is that people who are at the forefront of designing the product (I'm thinking of Alan Hastings and Stuart Ferguson here) have a major say in the way the company is being run.

tOd
01-10-2004, 03:56 AM
Great job guys. Thanks for asking all the tough questions and posting your opinions of what you saw. It will be interesting to see what time will tell about what tools Luxology are bringing to the table.

nessjp
01-10-2004, 04:36 AM
I posted a link to this thread in the Newtek forums to highlight the "special bonus for users of lightwave 8" and lo and behold the thread is gone.

Hmmm... perhaps it has something to do with the fact that I also put this quote there as well:

- Also how long till modo goes GM?

Because software development is a very fluid process , we'll only announce a concrete shipping date when we have one. Luxology understands that many people like to know approximately when the software will be released so they can make informed purchase decisions , however , we feel it is a disservice to those customers to project a date that may (and most likely will) change as the program evolves.

I guess one of the moderators did not like that part.

ThE_JacO
01-10-2004, 04:47 AM
Originally posted by nessjp

I guess one of the moderators sis not like that part.

if mods did their job only according to personal tastes the forum would be quite messy (but damn fun ;) )

it was simply, altho I'm sure absolutely innocent, a very flame prone subject to lift at present time, and even more important one debated way too much in the past weeks.

take it easy, let the ripples of the past threads disappear, and most important wait for final releases, and everything will be fine :)

gruvsyco
01-10-2004, 05:36 AM
Originally posted by nessjp
I guess one of the moderators did not like that part.

Actually, Newtek has stated repeatedly (and I believe it's a sticky on there) that their forum is not a place to discuss a competitors product. I think exceptions to that rule would be something like "I've been using Brand X and this is how I've done it, How do I do it in LW".

So no conspiracy just a very understandable posting policy. But hey, thanks for playing.

lildragon
01-10-2004, 06:25 AM
Wait and see scenerio for me, I use my current toolset at work and home just fine without any headaches.
What it comes down to imho is how well the licenses are setup for production use, the time and more importantly the cost. Because I honestly believe most studio execs won't even raise a brow if their current setup gets the job done and on time and budget.

If you understand the art, you can work with any tool.

-lild

roger
01-10-2004, 07:20 AM
CG Studios can model in any 3d program as long as it can import/export .obj files. With that said, a lot also model in one 3d package and then animate and render in or two different programs. So Modo can/could fit into any pipeline.
I think Modo looks very cool and I can't wait to try it! :thumbsup:

T4D
01-10-2004, 08:28 AM
I'm excited anyway :thumbsup:
specially with the specially price for Lw 8 users
I hope LW 8 is out by the time Modo comes Out LOL :D

BazC
01-10-2004, 10:59 AM
Thanks for all the info Sheep! Looks very cool but I fear it will be too pricey for me :o(

BinarySoup
01-10-2004, 11:08 AM
great q&a, the wide range of questions made for a good overall glimpse of what modo will be.

to me, the winning part of modo is likely the fact that it will be easy for 3rd party developers to create plugins that are not so tightly bound by the existing core, but can from what I've read, take over just about any functionality.

the ideal situation would be that modo gets a wide range of third party support where users could buy modules/plugins for renderers, alternate geometry (nurbs), animation etc. for this to come true though, modo has to be able to make a dent in the industry based upon it's initial submodeler, and here there is a fierce competition already.

personally I'm very interested in how powerful the scripting engine will be, if it allows enough 'under-the-hood' work then users may be able to tailor the modeler into something reflecting the users personal workflow way beyond that of a flexible gui setup.

ahwell, time will tell, again, great work on this comprehensive q&a Sheep and Mdme Sadie, thanks.

Nemoid
01-10-2004, 11:10 AM
Thanx for the interview and the infos, Sheep! you made a good work.
It seems like modo will be a good enhancement on Lw classic modelling capabilities and more.

Actually I expected more innovative features, but maybe they're part of the secret infos Lux has to reveal as well.

Surely Modo could be the starting point for a new funny way to work in 3D graphics. after all, Maya users for example are not used modelling easily and fast as in Lw

IMO a solo modelling module needs more than whats shown in Brad statements, but maybe in r2 or 3 we will see some more power.

However can't wait to try it and judge it properly!!

and can't wait to know IF some other module
is coming in the future...:drool:

yog
01-10-2004, 12:23 PM
I think the idea of an "OS" for 3D programs is a great one, because it certainly looks as though the industry is going more and more modular.

I'm a modeller by trade and for that I use Lightwave (and increasingly MAX), my renderer of choice is Vray, and whilst at the momment it is MAX only, the developers are working hard to make it a standalone program.
Whilst I'm not really an animator, I have had a couple false starts at improving my animation skills in the past, but none of the programs really suited me. However I've reciently taken advantage of Kaydara's Motion Builder offer and I'm getting along with it quite well. Again it's another modular program.

Now if there was a single program that could tie this altogether and make it work a lot more seamlessly than it does at the momment I would be in seventh heaven.

Possibly the most important aspect for Luxology to concentrate on will be the file format transfer. If this is right it then stands a chance of becoming the Paintshop Pro of the 3D world. Right from the start PSP handled so many file formats that people just got it for the file coversion ability, since then it has blossomed into quite a capable paint program.

j3st3r
01-10-2004, 01:28 PM
IMO a standalone, and comprehensive modelling tool is a good idea. Our company uses Maya and Lightwave for game developement, and there are tools is Maya that LW users would welcome, while ther are tools in LW that Maya users would welcome. If a COMPREHENSIVE tool is released, it is sure that we would use it.

Currently e.g. Wings3D is out of my sight, because it has no deformation tools, like bend, twist, lathe, extrude along spline, etc.

Beamtracer
01-10-2004, 01:45 PM
Originally posted by yog
I've reciently taken advantage of Kaydara's Motion Builder offer and I'm getting along with it quite well. You've got Motion Builder, but it's possible that Project Messiah may become a module for Luxology's new 3D app. Just speculating, as PMG is one of Lux's partners.

Chewey
01-10-2004, 02:26 PM
Originally posted by Wanker
You've got Motion Builder, but it's possible that Project Messiah may become a module for Luxology's new 3D app. Just speculating, as PMG is one of Lux's partners.

That's some pretty interesting "speculation". You might as well speculate that Modo is going to be folded into Poser, or that that Lux is looking into using/purchasing Bryce's render engine.

e.g. It's all baseless speculation without any shred of real evidence to back it up.

j3st3r
01-10-2004, 02:36 PM
I`m sure that Lux will develope their own tool for animation and render, if they wish.

pmg maybe partners, mainly because they are also providing a MODULE to exisiting pipelines. I think the rest is pure speculation.

Chewey
01-10-2004, 02:55 PM
Thanks to Sheepfactor and Sadie for the interview/info-mercial with Brad. I think you asked most of the major questions that folks listed here. I wish you would have discussed what their marketing strategy/approach is going to be. But it does look like they'll have a pretty nice little modeler whenever they get it up and running.

I have to agree with what LilDragon/Tito had to say about it however. There doesn't appear to be a real dearth of modeling aps out there at the moment.

I see nothing revolutionary within the modeling features so far, I can do what I need to just fine using a number of other aps including a few free ones. I could case less about chameleon interfaces myself.

After reading the interview I really didn't feel that brad had made any real news of note and there was no talk regarding pricing and a "certain" 12 month time frame for release. I was a tad disappointed with the catty manner he attempted to sidestep the issue with the gratuitous and sadly unprofessional cheap shot. One does sense that this unit won't be delivering very soon this year.

Post some new videos when they're available and see if they can use a conventional 4x3 monitor instead of the 16x9 since many of us aren't going to be using those cooler looking and pricey monitors for a while at least. I want to see modeling features and less of the eye candy component.

Rigley
01-10-2004, 03:04 PM
Thank you Sheep and Sadie !!! for getting the answers to our questions.

j3st3r
01-10-2004, 03:22 PM
Chewey, you`re right, nothing revolutionary yet, but what I`m glad of, that it will combine the strength of many application, including LW, Wings3D, etc.

Ooops. One revolutionary looking thing is that you can create your tool, combining few tools`effects together. I think that`s cool.

I agree also, that a series of video could be very informational for us

ripLEE
01-10-2004, 05:04 PM
Of course there will be a lux animation suite....... their looking very hard to see what XSI has and to go one step further and whilst I dont know all the details I suspect that combined this is the suite to beat in the not so distant future.... atleast for those of us who feel most at home in "Lux's" Lightwave but would like to have a new core and step up to the plate with the biggest bat in the ballpark.

It has a name BTW tho this may just be a werking title that may change....

"NEXUS" next generation animation suite

BinarySoup
01-10-2004, 05:14 PM
I don't get why people keep commenting about the lack of a revolutionary modeling feature, has there been an announcement that Modo would include such? while I understand that people question why they would buy this instead of continue using their current modeler (I sure do), I sure wasn't expecting a 'revolutionary' new modeling feature, since the only revolutionary comments I've heard surrounding Modo was that of it's open architecture.

What I've read up until now is that Modo was created as an open architecture 3d application, and in it's first release it will be presented as a subdivision modeler. it's ability to mimic gui/workflows of other 3d modelers are the first obvious possibilities of this open architecture, but I guess we won't see the real possibilities of such an architecture until 3rd party developers gets going. being a lightwave user, I look forward to being able to use edge-tools, ngons and a better uv-editing under a lightwave looking modeler environment, but in the long run, the modularity of the architecture, allowing (from what I've read) any part of the application's functionality to be handled by your own or 3rd party code, is what will carry this product.

most of us that does alot of modeling and has tried alot of modelers generally have a picture in our mind of what the perfect workflow for us personally would be. in my case this workflow is a mix of the ways different modelers operate, I'd love a modeler with the workflow of say wings3d, with the subdivision display and speed of lightwave, Modo does not promise to have this, or perhaps the preferred workflow of anyone else in this thread either, but it's flexible architecture atleast gives me the impression that it could be tailored to mimic near any workflow yet existing or to come, and this is what draws me towards this product, hopefully the price won't have me running screaming in the other direction...


lildragons wrote:
If you understand the art, you can work with any tool.
I don't quite understand what you implied by that, since this entire board is built around digital artwork which is an extension of traditional art, and digital art has become a massive industry mainly because it allows us to do things we could NOT using traditional art and also much faster. tools DOES in my opinion set boundaries to what we can create, it does NOT however, mean that we can't create great things using just charcoal and a cavewall, but I dare wager it's alot easier to get closer to what you envisioned if you used photoshop or painter instead ;)

if you just meant that there is nothing that can be done in the upcoming Modo, that can't be done in the current array of modelers, it is likely correct, but the same goes for being able to type in your own polygon mesh in a povray textfile instead of using a real-time modeler (ok, maybe a bit extreem example), the point is we are always (atleast I am) trying to improve our workflows until it feels exactly the way we want it. Now, if you are totally happy with your current modeler then naturally Modo or any other existing or upcoming modeler will hold no interest, but my guess is people visiting this thread feel there could be improvement (atleast that goes for me).

ripLEE
01-10-2004, 05:22 PM
BinarySoup..... well spoken! :applause: Ditto Ditto Ditto.... :beer:

lildragon
01-10-2004, 05:28 PM
I wasn't referring to traditional means of art since we're speaking about a 3D application, nothing is more important than knowledge and learning the foundation there within. And yes I was referring to the fact that with the vast array of modelers and some of the newer ones such as ZBrush (which in everyway IS revolutionary to our cause) why focus on yet another tuting basically a customizable interface amongst small little nice to haves? Nothing here would really prompt studio execs to purchase it over their current pipeline, cause trust me they aren't fanboys.

Anyhoo speaking of chalk/charcoal on cave walls and understanding the "foundation" of art you might want to see these chalk paintings on street sidewalks.

http://www.eyecandystudios.net/tmp/chalk1.jpg
http://www.eyecandystudios.net/tmp/chalk2.jpg
http://www.eyecandystudios.net/tmp/chalk3.jpg


salud

lildragon
01-10-2004, 05:31 PM
http://www.eyecandystudios.net/tmp/chalk4.jpg
http://www.eyecandystudios.net/tmp/chalk5.jpg

great aren't they? All with chalk and a pavement for a canvas. Knowledge exceeds everything

-lild

j3st3r
01-10-2004, 05:32 PM
Tool is an extension of the artist. The better the tool, the better the artist.

I used to came up with a metaphore: You cannot carve a statue with a dim chisel. That`s the same for digital art. The better your oil, the better your paint will look. Bad tools limit artists. That`s all. And it`s totally pointless to fight against a new application. Especially because it could easily happen that this willb e an industry standard

lildragon
01-10-2004, 05:37 PM
Originally posted by j3st3r
The better the tool, the better the artist.

That really swings both ways bud, no matter how great a tool can get, it doesn't improve the results without talent.

-lild

mbaldwin
01-10-2004, 05:40 PM
I agree with you, binary.

I get a little frustrated with the argument that true artists can create masterpieces with little more than rocks, spit and blood. While that may be true, it sorely misses the point of the debate.

workflow.

Most software apps can do the work, but I'm extremely interested in the threshold when work becomes flow. Good software tries to get as much needless mechanical detritus out of the way, so you can better see your creative intent. so you don't have to think about how many sides your polys have(within reason). So you don't have to mirror over only one axis, etc. Luxology seems dedicated to greasing the chute, allowing me to cruise though the modeling process, creating things slick as a whistle.

If they succeed, that'll be no minor thing--and something I'll gladly pay good money to use.

mbaldwin
01-10-2004, 05:54 PM
lildragon,

re: 'bad artists'

for the sake of this thread, can we aim a little higher, and assume the people participating are better than 'bad'? I fear more nuanced points will be missed if we shallow the discussion into gross caracture.

Laa-Yosh
01-10-2004, 06:07 PM
All's nice and shiny, but it still sounds and looks far too much LW-like to me (subpatches, weightmaps, dragnets etc.). Basically a rewrite of LW with some extra stuff on top / around, to give it the extensible architecture and interface. So if someone doesn't like LW's workflow and toolset, then Modo isn't his cup of tea I guess...

Nemoid
01-10-2004, 06:09 PM
Originally posted by BinarySoup
I don't get why people keep commenting about the lack of a revolutionary modeling feature, has there been an announcement that Modo would include such? while I understand that people question why they would buy this instead of continue using their current modeler (I sure do), I sure wasn't expecting a 'revolutionary' new modeling feature, since the only revolutionary comments I've heard surrounding Modo was that of it's open architecture.

What I've read up until now is that Modo was created as an open architecture 3d application, and in it's first release it will be presented as a subdivision modeler. it's ability to mimic gui/workflows of other 3d modelers are the first obvious possibilities of this open architecture, but I guess we won't see the real possibilities of such an architecture until 3rd party developers gets going. being a lightwave user, I look forward to being able to use edge-tools, ngons and a better uv-editing under a lightwave looking modeler environment, but in the long run, the modularity of the architecture, allowing (from what I've read) any part of the application's functionality to be handled by your own or 3rd party code, is what will carry this product.

most of us that does alot of modeling and has tried alot of modelers generally have a picture in our mind of what the perfect workflow for us personally would be. in my case this workflow is a mix of the ways different modelers operate, I'd love a modeler with the workflow of say wings3d, with the subdivision display and speed of lightwave, Modo does not promise to have this, or perhaps the preferred workflow of anyone else in this thread either, but it's flexible architecture atleast gives me the impression that it could be tailored to mimic near any workflow yet existing or to come, and this is what draws me towards this product, hopefully the price won't have me running screaming in the other direction...


lildragons wrote:

I don't quite understand what you implied by that, since this entire board is built around digital artwork which is an extension of traditional art, and digital art has become a massive industry mainly because it allows us to do things we could NOT using traditional art and also much faster. tools DOES in my opinion set boundaries to what we can create, it does NOT however, mean that we can't create great things using just charcoal and a cavewall, but I dare wager it's alot easier to get closer to what you envisioned if you used photoshop or painter instead ;)

if you just meant that there is nothing that can be done in the upcoming Modo, that can't be done in the current array of modelers, it is likely correct, but the same goes for being able to type in your own polygon mesh in a povray textfile instead of using a real-time modeler (ok, maybe a bit extreem example), the point is we are always (atleast I am) trying to improve our workflows until it feels exactly the way we want it. Now, if you are totally happy with your current modeler then naturally Modo or any other existing or upcoming modeler will hold no interest, but my guess is people visiting this thread feel there could be improvement (atleast that goes for me).


Wise words. However, Lux stated in their early statemensts in the website, Modo will be a revolutionary software, so that's why many people talks about revolutionary tools or technologies.

Now, from what Brad said and others said there seem not to be any apparent revolutionary tool, or different approach to modelling.
But this being said, Modo could be revolutionary however, because of its open architecture, high capabilities of building new tools, importing different sub-d algorythms, using more tools together and mixing tools from one app with tools properly seen in other apps. we know every app has its tools, lacks and strenghts so that mixing some tools can be very welcome!
encore: high programmability and scripting capabilities, construction history with clever ways not to get a huge history file and more.

this seem to be enough and its certainly enough for a good modelling module IMO. you're right saying Modo will show its power in the long term indeed.3D party plugs can be easily added so new great tools could be created for Modo and this its great. hope that it will have many plugs just like LW has. (but these will work smooth and properly isn't it?)

about tools and artists, its a one million dollars question (so quite unuseful) : a good artist can do many things with a crap tool, but also a good artist with the proper tools has a easier life indeed.!!! so, viva new tools when they are created they are always welcome and have to be used the best way we can.:)

gathering
01-10-2004, 06:12 PM
" - Does it show TRUE transparency? and not like LW "doted" transparency.

Yes.

- UV construction , are they more power and friendly like in Maya?

Yes. "

WOW! Next question?

- Is Modo a better modeler than Lightwave modeler or Maya?

Yes.

:rolleyes:

Chewey
01-10-2004, 06:28 PM
I guess I should readjust my props to all those 3DCG artists who've somehow managed to create some pretty nice work using only so-called "crap tools". :scream:


However I am pretty amused by the excitement over the "modular" approach being so novel. Some of the same peeps drooling over that were the ones bitching about how much they felt Lightwave needed to be a unified ap instead of the seperate modeler and layout.

There is basically no there there yet and I'm sure it'll be many, many months before a suite shows up. By then everyone else will have had time to forge ahead and perhaps even beyond the whispers and talk.

lildragon
01-10-2004, 06:48 PM
OK I would really like to know the selling point of this app,

1. ok it's open architecture, that's gathered but what more can 3rd party developers develop for an app that has "everything"? A skin library? it's a modeling module, not being sarcastic here it's an honest question.

2. We have an app here that's very reminiscent to the LW modeler in a number of ways, even with the same terminology, now given the present tools that are out already, why would a Max, XSI, Maya, C4D user want that?

3. It can export to numerous file formats, that's great! A shining quality, but so can the $299 USD Deep Exploration I've already invested on, why would I spend money for another?

What I tend not to like in software developers is them tuting their own horns without even a beta of the product available to the public, this is all heresay until it gets into the users hands who are the true say behind the app.

I'm not trying to knock the app, I just can't see how this would change my world.

Animanium was also tuted as loudly as this, granted it's an incredible looking app, but I've yet to hear it being successfully implemented into major production studios or even small production houses, who in all respects fork out the most cash on applications and licenses which keep the developers alive.

Just like placing a bid on a project, your track record plays a heavy role.

-lild

minus
01-10-2004, 07:34 PM
The selling point for me is that it may be one place where you can get all your modeling needs done in the end. I mean... I'm a LW user now... and sometimes I may want to use a different render engine or animation package than LW. However... I *really* love modeling in LW. Well...this (modo) brings the LW modeler... (with a whole lot more features)... into a modular environment where I will more easily be able to fit other render'ers into my work flow.

Now since it's like LW's modeler... except with a whole lot more features.... it becomes for me anyway... my one stop shop for all my modeling needs. If the community gets behind it.. and the plugin developers get behind it... then we may all be set since the architecture is so open.

Oddly enough... I think some people don't model in LW as they think LW *looks* hard... or scary. In the end the LW users know it's actually one of the easiest apps out there for modeling however. Maybe this (modo) could be another point of entry for 3D artists to jump in to this modeling style. The interface can be set up to be less scary... (though in the end you probably would end up using the LW interface... ;) )

One of LW's most amazing strengths is it's community. Be it on Cg_Talk... NewTek's boards... or with it's amazing Asian market popularity... (who write amazing plugins for it).... If the core of the community shifts to Modo... (and I don't see why they wouldn't for their modeling needs.... it *is* more powerfull)... then Modo will be in a very great place. A very open ended place for possibilities when it comes to their users preference for a renderer.

sketchyjay
01-10-2004, 07:52 PM
All we can do is speculate and think out loud about what might be and should be at this point. With luck someone will read these and use them the next time they do an interview.

From what I've gathered it seems like the revolutionary part is that the whole thing is open to plugin developers. An OS so to speak, any piece can be replace because the whole thing is moduler. So in essence it I could recode wings3d and replace modos modeler with it if i wanted.

The only way I see modo getting into the game is if they can partner with Messiah and all of Brads other former programmers from Newtek and getting them all to link their applications into modo. Everyone is making modelers these days so Modo will have to bring some amazing tools to the table

Right now they are just a modeler with some really big openings for animation and rendering plugins. I wish em luck.

Animanium reminds me of Nendo not Mirai in feature set so giving it the price of a full featured app is not going to help it. It's a unique app but the fact that you can't lock limbs in place when using IK makes it bothersome to use. Locked limbs squirm and twist so IK is only good for roughing out the positions. Then you have to use FK to get it exactly in place. Like modo, wings3d and Lightwave (sub-d modelers) it is designed for one way of working so it's another app that will have a hard time breaking in when Motionbuilder is half the price and has more features.


In the end I think Modo is in for a long uphill fight and only if they can survive the next few years with every company and their grandmother adding modo like features to stay competative with it will they begin to make some inroads. Not to mention the hordes of plugin makers who will copy every inovative tool in modo and have them for their app of choice in a matter of months wont help.

Jay

policarpo
01-10-2004, 08:26 PM
Thanks for the Q& A Sheepfactory and m_Sadie!

And thanks to Brad for taking the time to entertain our questions.


:beer:

Per-Anders
01-10-2004, 08:33 PM
i think maybe what people aren't quite getting yet is the level of extensibility and integration we're talking about here, it sounds like the API has been set up in a very sensible manner so that everything, and i mean everything can talk to everything else.

for instance you can make new falloff types and every single tool willl have access to these. and if you make a new tool then it will have access to all the falloff types and any new falloffs by other third parties.

the total integration of methods, tools, viewports etc means that someone could come along and create a directx viewport if they wanted, and all the current tools would be accesible through it.

when we coded Mesh Surgery for Cinema (which is also an OS, and also has a completely reconfigurable interface) one of the things we would have dearly loved to have done was make it so that soft selections were available to all tools, to add another layer of integration, but it just wasn't possible. from a third parties view this ability of modo's is very exciting.

modeling wise it's just a tool. they claim to have concentrated on workflow, taking the idea that the user should be able to make whatever workflow suits them. the tools we saw were nice, clean, simple. honestly folks, please question yourselves about how many tools you use day to day while modeling in your current apps of choice.

personally i only use at tops maybe 20 tools (and most of those tools are Mesh Surgery), most people i know use less still. some of the best modelers out there only use 5 or 6 tools while modeling, and they're not revolutionary tools either, yet i get the feeling everyone is looking for some brand spanking new concept in toolmaking. but i just don't think that's the major concern of Luxology, it is once agian just workflow.

I can put this in perspective here for me, Mesh Surgery had a few brand new concepts and tools (Projection Slice, Superflange etc), but that's not what makes it a good Plugin because aside form those few i would say 90% of what's there tool wise is old hat, i mean, it has multiaxis (maya), polygon split (maya) soft selection (lightwave, max), translate, scale, rotate (all apps), edge, poly, point loop and ring (all apps), bandsaw (all apps), jigsaw (all apps) etc... i.e. on spec sheet these tools are not going to raise any eyebrows, hell most of them were in Cinema 4D natively already, however the workflow we gave to these tools was in some cases original in others not but always better. We concentrated on workflow, making them the most intuitive tools we could adding that little bit extra which is what makes Mesh Surgery in my oppinion the best poly/subd modeling plugin available (even despite cinema's lack of ngons).

Now if Lux concentrate purely on workflow as they say they are... then i see no reason why Modo wont easily be the best subd modeling solution out there, because you can make it work how you want it to.

Whether it's a good idea to market a SubD modeler at this time is another can of worms entirely.

schmu_20mol
01-10-2004, 09:03 PM
thx sheep & sadie

OT: lildragon do you have links for that street-chalk-art or are that photos you made?

chikega
01-10-2004, 09:57 PM
Thanks for doing the interview, SheepFactory!

Mdme_sadie, I showed Mesh Surgery to a fellow medical animator who uses XSI and he's very excited about your possibly developing the plugin for XSI. I can't say enough good things about it.

By the way, don't you live in San Fransisco, Mdme_Sadie? And isn't Luxology based there too? Mmmmmm .... veddy veddy interesting. Maybe I'm just day dreaming here. But wouldn't it be nice if some aspects of Mesh Surgery were to make there way into Modo. Talk about joining forces - Mesh Surgery and N-gons - oh my!:)

BinarySoup
01-10-2004, 10:24 PM
lildragon wrote:
Anyhoo speaking of chalk/charcoal on cave walls and understanding the "foundation" of art you might want to see these chalk paintings on street sidewalks.
wow, those are amazing! however, if this is to prove some sort of point then I'm not getting it, as this incredible artist (who is he by the way?) can create superb art using nothing but chalk, but there are things he cannot do using chalk that he can do in the digital artform or even using somewhat more advanced art mediums such as acrylics/airbrushing, while both these mediums
would be able to recreate these chalk paintings. also he would not have been able to create these paintings using a 2B pencil, hence, even when skill does not limit an artist, his tools might.


lildragon wrote:
ok it's open architecture, that's gathered but what more can 3rd party developers develop for an app that has "everything"? A skin library? it's a modeling module, not being sarcastic here it's an honest question.
production renderers, alternate geometry support like nurbs, texture painting extensions, viewport renderers, material editors.... basically anything that would progress the application from it's initial state of a subdivision modeler. in fact I believe that without 3rd party support in the form of some of the above, Modo won't get much success at all.


minus wrote:
The selling point for me is that it may be one place where you can get all your modeling needs done in the end.
I hear you! I'm almost constantly dragging my models between wings3d and lightwave, wings3d has the easiest and most intuitive mesh manipulaton methodology I've ever come across (sorry, never has the chance to try nendo or mirai), but lacks a good subdivision mode and is slightly slow when dealing with heavy geometry, lightwave on the other hand lacks the workflow of wings but has great speed and a great subdivision mode. still, in the future my preferred workflow may change in to something radically different, and here is where Modo's open architecture is so attractive to me, as it allows the application to mimic any existing and hopefully future workflows.


mdme_sadie wrote:
Now if Lux concentrate purely on workflow as they say they are... then i see no reason why Modo wont easily be the best subd modeling solution out there, because you can make it work how you want it to.
Whether it's a good idea to market a SubD modeler at this time is another can of worms entirely.
indeed, every major 3d software packet has their own subdivision modeler and for someone to shell out for an external modeler it must have some features that you sorily miss in your existing setup. the only real 'killer' feature Modo has in it's current guise is the possibilities that the open architecture promises, apart from that it seems it has more or less merged all good modeling tools from the other modelers into a single app, and depending on the asking price, that may not be enough to warrant a purchase. personally I'll be keeping an eye out for any info pertaining the scripting language, as if powerful enough, will enable the user to easily tailor the modeler after their workflow instead of the reverse.

Modo is in it's current stage definately not the modeler to end all modelers, but with time and a couple of hundred plugins it might be ;), meanwhile it might help address some of the shortcomings users find in their current modeling setup, I definately don't see Modo as a must-have, so the price-point will be essential to me.

leuey
01-10-2004, 10:35 PM
I find it a little odd that you are questioning the 'selling points' of this program when so little of it has actually been revealed. How can you or anybody else make an informed decision on it? I'm quite sure it will have 'selling points' - the guys making it helped form the industry, they aren't exactly idiots who are going to make a program just like everything else out there. Some of the similarity to LW is obvious - Stewart owns the code and he incorporated *some* of (or a variation of) it into the new program. Not a bad thing seeing as how modeler is highly regarded as it is.

As far as evaluating what HAS been shown - read the post by mdme_sadie above. Much better than I could have written it.

best,

Greg

(as a side note 'Revolutionary' features are fewer and farther between. But people do buy things as a matter of preference on how certain features are implemented. I have LW and Maya, I model in LW even though they share many of the same features - it's a matter of preference.....)



Originally posted by lildragon
OK I would really like to know the selling point of this app,

1. ok it's open architecture, that's gathered but what more can 3rd party developers develop for an app that has "everything"? A skin library? it's a modeling module, not being sarcastic here it's an honest question.

2. We have an app here that's very reminiscent to the LW modeler in a number of ways, even with the same terminology, now given the present tools that are out already, why would a Max, XSI, Maya, C4D user want that?

3. It can export to numerous file formats, that's great! A shining quality, but so can the $299 USD Deep Exploration I've already invested on, why would I spend money for another?

What I tend not to like in software developers is them tuting their own horns without even a beta of the product available to the public, this is all heresay until it gets into the users hands who are the true say behind the app.

I'm not trying to knock the app, I just can't see how this would change my world.

Animanium was also tuted as loudly as this, granted it's an incredible looking app, but I've yet to hear it being successfully implemented into major production studios or even small production houses, who in all respects fork out the most cash on applications and licenses which keep the developers alive.

Just like placing a bid on a project, your track record plays a heavy role.

-lild

Ibox
01-10-2004, 10:49 PM
Yea, Lil Dragon, thanx ever so much for showing those photo's... proof in the pudding that one must have a good grasp of art in order to deliver, regardless of the tools used... bang on, point well demonstrated...

Actually this whole thread is somewhat humorous, in that there are so many valid points by so many different artists here, each sort of going in thier own direction, yet each being somewhat true in thier own :)

fact is that we all have different natural brain compositions, pure and simple, and thus we will never always all agree with each other because naturaly speaking we are in fact each different from each other... no big secret here really :)

In fact there are many autistic people, and other such groupings if you will, who, because perhaps some lobes of thier brain are damaged, thus utilize other lobes much more in tune than most "normal" developed folks do, and as such, many of these people are beyond comprehension within quite a few artistic areas/discipines, be it art, music or what have you...

so let us appluad our differences and simply be glad to be able to do what we do, no matter the skill levels involved, or the tools preferred and used... thank goodness we are each different in many ways, and have so many choices to provide for these differences :)

rock on each of you, and do have fun regardless of your preferences eh... if when the Modo app is released and some like it, then great, and if others don't then also ok, just as long as we all have something to work with... cool

happy creat'n all :D

sketchyjay
01-10-2004, 11:59 PM
Originally posted by mdme_sadie
for instance you can make new falloff types and every single tool willl have access to these. and if you make a new tool then it will have access to all the falloff types and any new falloffs by other third parties.

the total integration of methods, tools, viewports etc means that someone could come along and create a directx viewport if they wanted, and all the current tools would be accesible through it.


Ah...

Now that is the thing that was lacking in Lightwave. many plugin developers made new tools but some would not modify the UV map so it would break or morphs would be damaged. Some of the tools worked in symmetry mode and others didn't.

That is a really great feature if plugins work across the board instead of in piecemeal fashion.

As they release more demo movies about the whole architecture idea it may begin to make more sense to me. I know I am probably only absorbing the minimum of what it can do.

It will be interesting to hear more about the pipe idea among other things.

Jay

j3st3r
01-11-2004, 07:26 AM
Lildragon, artist is artist. Tool is an EXTESION as I wrote. I`m sure, that we agree. Therfore, bad artist cannot do good artwork with a good tool, as well as I think it is hard (but POSSIBLE) to do good artwork with bad tool.

But the artist, who doesn`t want to work with a BETTER tool, is hmm...strange...

modo`s no.1 selling point could be the OPEN ARCHITECTURE. For example a game company easily could incorporate it`s object viewer, or their own shading technology. Or easily adopt multi-texturing display, etc. Or they could easily write their own tools for modeling. I think, if wings3d could make a success (not just because it`s free), I think modo has the chance also. If the promises come true, of course. Until then we can just speculate.

And why an XSI, Max, or Maya user would choose modo? If it offers more productivity, why not?

MCronin
01-11-2004, 08:20 AM
Originally posted by j3st3r
But the artist, who doesn`t want to work with a BETTER tool, is hmm...strange...

You're assuming Modo is the better tool. It very well may not be. The perfect tool for him may be Max or Maya or whatever. No one really knows anything about this app other than it has Lightwave like modeling tools and a customisable interface. Well alot of artists don't like LW modeler, some outright hate it, and their app of choice already has a customizable interface that they are used to. The other thing is it's just a subdivision modeler. Maybe other modules will come in the future but I think most people prefer to have a modeler that is tightly integrated with the rest of their animation tools.

Some people are skeptical about Modo. I'm one of them. I've watched the demos and read the articles. So far I see nothing that would make me want to use it, but can give you a list as long as my arm of reasons why I probably wouldn't use it. The main one being this extensibility that everyone is mentioning. All these companies are throwing out software with APIs and what not expecting developers and third parties will latch on and add to the base. That's nice, but it shouldn't be a selling point. I thought this software was supposed to be for artists.

How about focusing on making a piece of software with a complete feature set that doesn't require 100 extra plugins and other pieces of software so the ARTIST, whom the software is supposed to be designed for, can actually create some artwork?

ripLEE
01-11-2004, 08:26 AM
Art is in the making there of........ not in the finished product........ the finished product is merely a testimant of said art.

True art is created with the heart and mind.... and done with a driving passion.

There for NO "Art" can ever be construed as "BAD" EVER!!!

IE: My 8 year old niece breaks out her crayons and draws a picture and enjoys the process putting her heart and soul into a visual representation of her dreams.... once the art is over, the testimant to said art may not be as technically advanced as say a Sebastian Kruger it is however just as pure and just as BEAUTIFUL.

Sworry to rant but since I've been following this particular thread wich has nothing to do with this subject I've been completly saddened by the use of the word "BAD" and "Art" in the same sentences.

If picasso was unknown to us all and posted some of his work here....... I can just imagine how badly people would tear him apart..... sad :( so very sad :(

PS: to add some relevance to the topic.... if I was to give my neice a computer with photoshop and a wacom (more advanced tools than her crayons) and she found it easier to get more of her dreams out faster and more precisly with these tools (that bring her joy and pride during and after the process) than thats great yes? Thats how I see modo or any new and exciting tool that allows the artist more freedom to explore their own dreams and express them more accurate and vividly in a shorter amount of time with more pleasure and less frustration.

SheepFactory
01-11-2004, 08:27 AM
Originally posted by MCronin
How about focusing on making a piece of software with a complete feature set that doesn't require 100 extra plugins and other pieces of software so the ARTIST, whom the software is supposed to be designed for, can actually create what they want?

From what I have seen modo is a step in that direction. They never said the toolset wont be complete and require 3rd party developers to fill the gaps.

I think best is to wait and see. If they deliver we'll have a alternative modeller to use , if it fails to live up to the expectations we can stick to max , maya , xsi , whatever it is thats most comfortable to each person and move on.

Ibox
01-11-2004, 08:37 AM
Well put Sheep... not so long ago it was Silo that was creat'n the stir... upon release and further examination some took to it while others simply carried on... same same I suppose when Modo becomes available for use...

we will just have to wait and see... ;) :)

here's hoping that at least some will be pleased...

Beamtracer
01-11-2004, 09:41 AM
One curious thing in the Peebler interview was that he seems to be encouraging people to buy Lightwave 8. Isn't Lightwave 8 the competitor to Nexus/Modo?

Peebler said there'll be a discounted price for current Lightwave users. But he also seemed to suggest that there'll be an even bigger discount for those people who own Lightwave 8.

Not all Lightwave users will buy LW8 straight away. Like with any software, some users are slower to upgrade, and do it later down the track.

But if Modo comes on the market you'd think: "I'd better buy LW8 now rather than in 6 months, then I can get the discount price on Modo". Do it in the reverse order and you'll pay more money.

slow67
01-11-2004, 11:20 AM
flip through some of the newtek forums and you will see a ton of people crying about the lack of modeler updates in lightwave, most of these users have already paid for lightwave 8, Im sure luxology would like to help them out.

thanks for taking the time to do the interview it was very interesting.

SnowKrash
01-11-2004, 01:09 PM
Originally posted by MCronin
How about focusing on making a piece of software with a complete feature set that doesn't require 100 extra plugins and other pieces of software so the ARTIST, whom the software is supposed to be designed for, can actually create some artwork?
In Utopia we have such a software package that provides every feature one could possibly desire ;). Back in the real world this isn't the case though and having a solid foundation to build upon means that one can implement missing or cutting-edge functionality instead of hoping and waiting for the divine creator to provide it. As a number of people have said it's exactly like an OS, without which we wouldn't be able to run applications in the first place and this is one of the reasons why Maya has gained traction in high end production and Max less so.

Again a number of people have pointed out that beyond core features workflow is a big deal and this appears to be another focus of Modo. Let's hope that they deliver on both counts and at the right price so that it can perhaps operate as a work hub and/or an affordable platform on which to build custom tools.

So in summary, whilst this tech might not immediately excite you as an artist it can ultimately be very enabling.

Nemoid
01-11-2004, 01:30 PM
Originally posted by lildragon
OK I would really like to know the selling point of this app,

1. ok it's open architecture, that's gathered but what more can 3rd party developers develop for an app that has "everything"? A skin library? it's a modeling module, not being sarcastic here it's an honest question.

2. We have an app here that's very reminiscent to the LW modeler in a number of ways, even with the same terminology, now given the present tools that are out already, why would a Max, XSI, Maya, C4D user want that?

3. It can export to numerous file formats, that's great! A shining quality, but so can the $299 USD Deep Exploration I've already invested on, why would I spend money for another?

What I tend not to like in software developers is them tuting their own horns without even a beta of the product available to the public, this is all heresay until it gets into the users hands who are the true say behind the app.

I'm not trying to knock the app, I just can't see how this would change my world.

Animanium was also tuted as loudly as this, granted it's an incredible looking app, but I've yet to hear it being successfully implemented into major production studios or even small production houses, who in all respects fork out the most cash on applications and licenses which keep the developers alive.

Just like placing a bid on a project, your track record plays a heavy role.

-lild

Here some thoughts :

!) IMO there's always a lot of space for 3rd party plugs. why limit other people fantasy to create new interesting tools ? this is more valid if Modo will have the open architecture wich will make this easier for other developers. This doesn't mean I think Modo will not have all the good tools a great modeler requires, but thinking theres' no space for plugs is an error for me.

2) here you are right. for this reason I like so much being a Lw user!
However, I think Maya or XSI users may have the curiosity just to try a new modeler and see if it fits to their needs. In fact sticking with one app for all process is an error, just because you must have an open -minded attitude to 3d creating process. otherwise its a great limit in understanding what 3D is.

Lw modelling process is quite easy and powerful right now, even with some lacks. if modo will be an extension of Lw organic modelling approach, I think all 3d makers will benefit of this.


Its a clay -like approach, that combined with ngons, edge weighting and tools similar to mesh surgery will surely be both fast and powerfull.

3) heheh this is a good question surely an app has to be bought to use it, not only to convert formats. However, even Rhino converts alot of formats. :scream:


From my POV an app like Modo deserves a try. then we could properly judge, just like every other app out there. no one says its or will be a must have for sure, I think a good user of every 3D app can make a very good job without revolutionary tools indeed.

The good thing is that when a new tool is out you have to try if it fits to YOUR needs.

The question an artst can make is : how many effort will require to get my job done? if the new tool requires less effort and give you the same results, then its time to add it to the toolset if you can.

Chewey
01-11-2004, 02:58 PM
Originally posted by leuey


snip...

Some of the similarity to LW is obvious - Stewart owns the code and he incorporated *some* of (or a variation of) it into the new program.

snip...


=========================
- How much of the LW modeller code reside in modo?

Modo was written from the ground up to make certain it would benefit from the most up to date development tools (such as Xcode) and allow us to create a far more extensible system than was previously available.
=========================

meaning no code from LW5 modeler nor from the rewritten LW6 plus revs.

Any guess as to what team was involved with the rewrite of the LW5.6 code?

Beamtracer
01-11-2004, 03:24 PM
Originally posted by Chewey meaning no code from LW5 modeler nor from the rewritten LW6 plus revs.

Any guess as to what team was involved with the rewrite of the LW5.6 code? [/B] Dear oh dear, Chewey. Try not to feel threatened by Modo.

I think many users will want to buy Lightwave 8 as well as Modo. Lightwave 8's improvements are mainly in Layout, not Modeler. Modo needs a renderer, so Lightwave desertees will still need their Lightwave to render. So, I think most Modo buyers will also get LW8.

Chewey, it's fairly obvious that you don't like Modo. I think you've made it pretty clear. In that respect, I hope the rest of this thread doesn't bore you too much, as it's not a topic you're interested in.

mbaldwin
01-11-2004, 03:44 PM
Chewey,

I'd agree with the Wankmeister. It's great that most people have avoided spewing bile with this thread. Who's knocking Lightwave? or any of the other apps? I think it's possible to talk about the promise of a new app and STILL like the functionality of the others. No need for partisanship.

Back to modo:

an average modeling project of ours could entail 60 man-hours or more: shaving even 3-4 hours off this(with increased productivity) could pay for the price of a new seat of software. That's why I'm interested in new products like Lux's.

sketchyjay
01-11-2004, 03:53 PM
That LW 8 remark... wonder if it could mean he might link modo into the LW Hub. Aura did it. Brad is the guy who put the hub into LW in the first place so who knows

Jay

Rigley
01-11-2004, 04:02 PM
"wonder if it could mean he might link modo into the LW Hub"


That would be COOL !! :)

Chewey
01-11-2004, 04:07 PM
Originally posted by Wanker
Dear oh dear, Chewey. Try not to feel threatened by Modo.

I think many users will want to buy Lightwave 8 as well as Modo. Lightwave 8's improvements are mainly in Layout, not Modeler. Modo needs a renderer, so Lightwave desertees will still need their Lightwave to render. So, I think most Modo buyers will also get LW8.

Chewey, it's fairly obvious that you don't like Modo. I think you've made it pretty clear. In that respect, I hope the rest of this thread doesn't bore you too much, as it's not a topic you're interested in.

So aside from your need to make a side track into personal digs did you notice the info I provided and care to comment on that instead? Luey made a comment that needed to be corrected. Lux has stated that there is no LW modeler code within modo. If you look around the various modo threads here you'll see them step up to the plate and set the record straight themselves when necessary.

Beamtracer
01-11-2004, 04:54 PM
Hi Chewey, my comment that you don't seem to like Modo was just an observation, and was not intended to insult you. I just got the impression all your comments about Modo were negative, which made me wonder why you want to keep reading about it.

Hastings, Ferguson and the rest were responsible for rewriting LW5.6, but the fact that they are rewriting again doesn't mean the last one was a bad job. Technology changes, and software must change to today's best practice. I can think of lots of software from other companies that would also benefit from a rewrite.

sketchyjay's idea about incorporating Modo with Hub is interesting. I hadn't thought of that, but it's a good idea. That plus a discounted price for current Lightwave users may attract people to buy it.

mbaldwin
01-11-2004, 04:59 PM
Chewey wrote:

meaning no code from LW5 modeler nor from the rewritten LW6 plus revs.

Any guess as to what team was involved with the rewrite of the LW5.6 code?

I'm not sure I'm following your insinuation, but If your implying that no one on the Lux development team created the current Lightwave modeler code, I'm not sure I buy into your leap of reason.

Also, what's the point? I admire your enthusiasm for Lightwave, but can we keep the topic on modo please? I think technical comparison's to other app's features/performance are cool. even enlightening. I think the social and corporate comparison's are thorny, though, and should be avoided.

Chewey
01-11-2004, 05:10 PM
Originally posted by Wanker
Hi Chewey, my comment that you don't seem to like Modo was just an observation, and was not intended to insult you. I just got the impression all your comments about Modo were negative, which made me wonder why you want to keep reading about it.

Hastings, Ferguson and the rest were responsible for rewriting LW5.6, but the fact that they are rewriting again doesn't mean the last one was a bad job. Technology changes, and software must change to today's best practice. I can think of lots of software from other companies that would also benefit from a rewrite.

sketchyjay's idea about incorporating Modo with Hub is interesting. I hadn't thought of that, but it's a good idea. That plus a discounted price for current Lightwave users may attract people to buy it.

Not a problem.:) I' also like the idea of a hub connection and there are certainly some other features that look pretty interesting. On a side note I'm hoping that they can provide some type of hair/fur but perhaps it will be the Joe Alter solution if he gets on board.

To mbaldwin, my comments were a correction to the thought that any of the old and/or current code is used in or resides in the lux modo which is incorrect and stated so recently by lux reps and brad. Hardly an "insinuation" unless you're trying to find something provocative where there isn't any.

Beamtracer
01-11-2004, 05:14 PM
Originally posted by Chewey
'm hoping that they can provide some type of hair/fur but perhaps it will be the Joe Alter solution if he gets on board. Yeah, I'm not sure what will happen regarding existing plug-ins and Nexus/Modo.

I wonder if companies like Worley Labs have made a decision on what they'll do about Luxology. Will they port G2 and Sasquatch across? Will they just wait and see how big Lux's user base is before deciding?

mbaldwin
01-11-2004, 05:51 PM
one of the big areas where my workflow breaks down currently is CAMERA MAPPING. I dig modeling as much as the next guy, but there's been lots of still jobs where decent camera mapping would have sufficed and saved a bunch of time.

LUX's modeling-only approach doesn't do anything to aid this--until possibly their other modules show up down the road.

leuey
01-11-2004, 06:12 PM
Chewey - I qualified my statement saying a **variation of** the original modeler code. Modo being written 'from the ground up' doesn't preclude that. For instance "The alternate subd engine is visually identical to the Lightwave 3d engine. This allows the user to model in that style , or simply use it to check for artifacts prior to export." So you're going to tell me that the guy who wrote the original code for LW, still has the rights to it, and has a program with the same feature didn't use at least a **variation** on that old code? Come on......
And of course Brad's going to give an ambiguous answer - he's essentially a sales and marketing person.

Besides WHO CARES? You're a really strange dude, I've been reading some of these Modo threads and you seem to constantly disparage a program that isn't even out yet and defend a program that doesn't need your defense. I've used LW since the Amiga days and have used Maya for years and years. And I can tell you (all of you) that the upcoming release of this program is a GOOD thing. If you find you don't like it - then don't buy it, don't hang around modo threads and comment on it, and don't hide in the corner of your bedroom feeling threatened by it.

Holy Bajeezus. And if you follow on your previous passive/aggressive line of accusing me of being insulting then I'll just pre-empt you and give you an answer right now. Yes, I'm making fun of you. You've earned it. :thumbsup:

-Greg



Originally posted by Chewey
=========================
- How much of the LW modeller code reside in modo?

Modo was written from the ground up to make certain it would benefit from the most up to date development tools (such as Xcode) and allow us to create a far more extensible system than was previously available.
=========================

meaning no code from LW5 modeler nor from the rewritten LW6 plus revs.

Any guess as to what team was involved with the rewrite of the LW5.6 code?

Chewey
01-11-2004, 06:26 PM
Originally posted by leuey
Chewey - I qualified my statement saying a **variation of** the original modeler code. Modo being written 'from the ground up' doesn't preclude that. For instance "The alternate subd engine is visually identical to the Lightwave 3d engine. This allows the user to model in that style , or simply use it to check for artifacts prior to export." So you're going to tell me that the guy who wrote the original code for LW, still has the rights to it, and has a program with the same feature didn't use at least a **variation** on that old code? Come on......
And of course Brad's going to give an ambiguous answer - he's essentially a sales and marketing person.

Besides WHO CARES? You're a really strange dude, I've been reading some of these Modo threads and you seem to constantly disparage a program that isn't even out yet and defend a program that doesn't need your defense. I've used LW since the Amiga days and have used Maya for years and years. And I can tell you (all of you) that the upcoming release of this program is a GOOD thing. If you find you don't like it - then don't buy it, don't hang around modo threads and comment on it, and don't hide in the corner of your bedroom feeling threatened by it.

Holy Bajeezus. And if you follow on your previous passive/aggressive line of accusing me of being insulting then I'll just pre-empt you and give you an answer right now. Yes, I'm making fun of you. You've earned it. :thumbsup:

-Greg

Glad to see your mature and measured response to your being corrected on the facts. :thumbsup:

ripLEE
01-11-2004, 09:28 PM
:rolleyes:

BinarySoup
01-11-2004, 11:07 PM
come on guys, let's all disagree in a civil manner, I don't think chewey or anyone else is gunning for modo, negative sounding comments are if anything likely dissapointment due to Modo's lack of a new modeling feature, and those expectations were likely generated by all the (undeserved?) buzz surrounding Modo since it's announcement.

I hate these 'my 3d application of choice is much better than yours' quabbles as much as anyone, but I have seen no such remarks here in this tread, please let's keep it that way.

as for people getting tired of speculation regarding unreleased applications, then I'd suggest you just stop reading this thread, since with the two factors of:

1) a substantial interest in this unreleased modeler, and

2) the lack of hard facts regarding it,

it's only natural that rumours and speculations are rampant.

Beamtracer
01-12-2004, 02:04 AM
Modo's "modular" approach makes you assume that you'd have to work in a separate modeler and renderer.

A lot of people would prefer to be working in a combined model/render app, as there are some things that be achieved better that way.

Could Modo's "modules" just be a marketing concept? Maybe Modos foundation as a "3D operating system" could still mean that a combined modeler/renderer may still be achievable.

BinarySoup
01-12-2004, 02:46 AM
wanker wrote:
Modo's "modular" approach makes you assume that you'd have to work in a separate modeler and renderer.
I'm pretty much sure that is not the case, from what I understand of the flexible gui/system architecture, Modo can host just about any type of code which in turn has the ability to totally rearrange both look and operation of existing and added functions.

Integration could be as simple as the plugin just adding a new tab or drop down menu, the modularity in regards to modo is likely that of the way each functionality can be replaced/changed, either from within the progam or by incorporating external code in the form of plugins, splitting a possible modo software suite in to separate programs for rendering, animation etc is totally reverse of what they claim that they are trying to achieve with modo.

but hey, I've been dissapointed before, whenever a sdk draft is released I guess we'll know for sure what can and cannot be done from an external software point.

Per-Anders
01-12-2004, 02:55 AM
from what we saw everything can be totally integrated. all they've done with their OS currently is make a SubD modeler, but in theory you should be able to do anything with that OS. So to explain another way, when you launch modo, what you're doing is launching the OS and then it will probably by default come up with a few viewports who's contents is relevant to SubD Modeling... but there's no reason why it has to do that, it could come up with windows who's contents are to do with compositing. or even the same subd modeling viewports but with different tools for layout and animating and maybe another viewport with a timeline, either way it's one OS that everything sits inside of.

sketchyjay
01-12-2004, 03:32 AM
Ever since I heard about Modo and have read about it made me think of one thing. Them taking the idea of the hub and blowing it up into a full OS that instead of acting as a bridge would be an entire skeleton that all the parts would fit into.

For those of you outside Lightwave the software is broken into 2 (3ish) pieces of software (A modeler and a animaion/renderer and a paint program (mirage by Bauhaus). all of them joined by a bridging application that allows real time updates of information between them (the HUB)

What I am getting at was that everything is in the same interface. There is no jumping back and forth between software. But how it will all work together we'll just have to wait and see.

Jay

CG.p
01-12-2004, 06:23 AM
Originally posted by MCronin
No one really knows anything about this app other than it has Lightwave like modeling tools and a customisable interface. Well alot of artists don't like LW modeler, some outright hate it,

That is a good point.. Can you please posts links to the videos actually showing people modeling objects and not just the ones we have seen showing little features?

Using the excuse that it has a button named endomorphs is just stupid. I'm sure you can rename the button. As for the functionality of embedding morph targets into the object, users of other apps brag that they can do that in their apps. I'm sure if there are other methods of storing data in the objects that you can do that. What else is there in Modo that offends you in Lightwave?

CG.p
01-12-2004, 06:37 AM
Originally posted by Wanker
I wonder if companies like Worley Labs have made a decision on what they'll do about Luxology. Will they port G2 and Sasquatch across?

Say Steve Worley does write a Modo version of G2...keep in mind that there was mention of a game company being able to replace the display. Why not "expect" a Modo version of G2 replacing the display instead of it being a secondary preview window? That is if one were written.

Beamtracer
01-12-2004, 07:06 AM
Originally posted by CG.p
Say Steve Worley does write a Modo version of G2...keep in mind that there was mention of a game company being able to replace the display. Why not "expect" a Modo version of G2 replacing the display instead of it being a secondary preview window? That is if one were written. I notice that Worley is listed on Luxology's website as being one of their commercial partners.

Something must be going on!

Nemoid
01-12-2004, 10:52 AM
Hey, Worley labs are capable of many things ! since they did a good plug like G2 for Lw, wich is limited by Lw structure itself, can't imagine what they will be able to do into an open environment like Modo.

About Modo structure, it seems like its a really new , open environment wich will allow to integrate alot of "modules", tools and plugins and all of this is supposed to work in the smoothest and complete and efficient way possible.
In that sort of environment its clear that a module or every other thing you throw into, will become a real part of the software and not an added piece at all.
A thing similar to how a MEL script works in Maya, and maybe smth better, also because you could program pieces in different languages,import different code and allow all this to work properly together.

CIM
01-12-2004, 11:36 AM
Originally posted by CG.p
Say Steve Worley does write a Modo version of G2...keep in mind that there was mention of a game company being able to replace the display. Why not "expect" a Modo version of G2 replacing the display instead of it being a secondary preview window? That is if one were written.

Modo/Nexus really shouldn't need a port of G2. Maya and XSI basically have everything built right into the package that G2 trys to offer (super preview renderer, advanced rendering[sss, absorption, etc], control over surfaces, etc). If Luxology is with it (which they seem to be), they'll provide those sort of things with the base package.

I'm guessing Worley is only there to consult with and maybe provide some algorithms to Luxology.

ripLEE
01-12-2004, 02:52 PM
I've held my tongue from saying alot of things on this thread but thought I'd go ahead and make one point.....

Luxology (the folks thereof) who created our great tools (for those of us who are wavers) have been around forever (at the risk of making a redundant statment) as were using their tools right now.... so this being said Luxology is the trusted reliable old faithful that we (the users) and the developers are use to werking with.... The way I see it it's Newtek thats now in their infancy.
Yes I upgraded to 8 (can't beat the deal) but my next upgrade aswell as I'm sure many users and most certainly (now LW armed) studios will be to Nexus/Modo. It's newtek that will have to come to the proving ground and develop a user base of their own...... on this I'd love to hear your alls thoughts.... disagreements.

Nemoid
01-12-2004, 03:28 PM
Here some of my thoughts :

For now, Lw has its user base and if lw8.x releases will prove efficient and good i don't see why Lw could not go ahead and develop more and more in a modern way.
Nt team also recently switched to x tools for development, so maybe we will see good things for Lw future.

there's also a price consideration to do : good or revolutionary environment or not, if Modo will be too expensive for certain users to buy, alot of users will remain with Lw for sure.

small or intermediate studios could consider to use a Modo/Lw pipeline though. a clever thing is that they could switch also to a Modo/Maya pipeline as well, mantaining their way to model and exporting smoothly to Maya.

Don't want to start a flame, but Maya costs 2000 $ and its a great environment wich can be filled by many plugs and scripts to work more efficiently and has a lot of powerful tools, ( even if IMO has a complex workflow ). its also a complete app from modeling to rendering.

so a complete app can't cost so much more, even if we have alot of examples, the more pricey being XSI (IMO overvalued like Maya was sometime ago)

considering the fact of creating a new environment and being the base for other "supposed" modules to come, $ 400 could be a good price for Modo, but if its less pricey is better.

The fact that Lux owners are the original creators of Lw, its nice to me, but Modo is another product. so we'll have to consider it just like a new 3D app. I think that showing SOME analogy with Lw modeler is natural and normal cause creators are the same.

CG.p
01-12-2004, 04:15 PM
Originally posted by CIM
Modo/Nexus really shouldn't need a port of G2.


Well, yeah but I was just pointing out that something like that COULD be done. :)

Thalaxis
01-12-2004, 06:50 PM
Originally posted by Sheep Factory

as soon as my wrist stops hurting :) , I just typed all this stuff lemme rest a bit guys :P
Ali


:beer:

:D

Great interview... thanks for the writeup!

Thalaxis
01-12-2004, 06:54 PM
Originally posted by Wanker
It's interesting that Luxology decided to do a total rewrite of the modeling program, considering that Lux's Stuart Ferguson owned the code of Lightwave's modeler (if you look, the copyright notice is on LW Modeler's info box).


In 8 years of professional software engineering, I've yet to see an
employment contract that does not state that what you produce
for your employer belongs to your employer. That means that my
code is not mine when I leave my company.


Rewriting also would have given them the option to write the Mac version in the "objective-C" programming language, but it seems like they didn't, if both Windows and Mac version come "95%" from the same code base.


When you want to write portable software, standard
programming languages are the way to go, especially if you want
to support a 3rd party development community through a plugin
SDK.

Rigley
01-12-2004, 07:05 PM
"Luxology (the folks thereof) who created our great tools (for those of us who are wavers) have been around forever (at the risk of making a redundant statment) as were using their tools right now.... so this being said Luxology is the trusted reliable old faithful that we (the users) and the developers are use to werking with.... The way I see it it's Newtek thats now in their infancy."

I have the same thoughts about this situation...

PhilOsirus
01-12-2004, 07:15 PM
Hmm this is getting interesting. Imagine this:

You open up Modo, a list of different "styles" appear which have been made by YOU. For exemple YOUR kind of modeling interface that integrates both the tools YOU want to use for modeling AND animating, while leaving many out (thanks to your conifguration of said style). This enables you to limit pick and choose exactly what you need, save it is a "style" and open it when needed. Then you might want to perform only animating tasks, so you open your "Animating style". If a tool is needed for a particular task that isn't usually part of your "Animating style" you simply load it, like a plug-in. Your scene file saves all needed files and "tools" in its own "style" file which is automaticly opened everytime you open up said scene.

Would that be any helpful?

Per-Anders
01-12-2004, 07:32 PM
what we saw it had preset layouts and you can create your own custom layouts with whatever tools windows etc you want and it'll appear in the list of layouts for you to quickly switch between i.e. it's exactly like Cinema4D, XSI, Maya etc in that respect. as regards different layouts being saved as part of a scene, that i wouldn't know. first off someone owuld have to create a "layout"/"scene" plugin/module for modo.

at the moment it is just a modeler from what we saw, there's no render engine, no layout, i don't know what lighting capabilities it has if any. that's why i find it odd that people are going on about Worley products, that basically are all about rendering but there's no rendering component int there (that we saw) yet. Worley would first of all have to make either a bridge to an already existing render engine, or make their own render engine before they could start to implement stuff like G2. if you're a lightwave user then maybe best to think of it like the Modeler component of Lightwave, not Layout (though of course over time there's no reason why it couldn't get layout/rendering/animation capabilities).

Srek
01-12-2004, 07:55 PM
Originally posted by Phil "Osirus"
Hmm this is getting interesting. Imagine this:

You open up Modo, a list of different "styles" appear which have been made by YOU. For exemple YOUR kind of modeling interface that integrates both the tools YOU want to use for modeling AND animating, while leaving many out (thanks to your conifguration of said style). This enables you to limit pick and choose exactly what you need, save it is a "style" and open it when needed. Then you might want to perform only animating tasks, so you open your "Animating style". If a tool is needed for a particular task that isn't usually part of your "Animating style" you simply load it, like a plug-in. Your scene file saves all needed files and "tools" in its own "style" file which is automaticly opened everytime you open up said scene.

Would that be any helpful?
Hm, sounds very much like tha CINEMA 4D layouts
Cheers
Srek

liquidik
01-12-2004, 07:57 PM
Well, the concept of an OS is pretty much what Maya is based on. Look at mel, everything you do in the interface is just mel. I think what luxology is doing is considering what is good in the actual software (and what is bad) and taking it 2 steps further. Anyway, this takes time. Remember what Softimage had to do??? remeber the pain in which Soft folks where???

Relax...and continue to produce with what software you like more. Once you have the key concepts, mastering a new software is just like learning where are the buttons.

Liquid

ripLEE
01-12-2004, 08:36 PM
mdme_sadie.... the layout portion has been carded "Nexus" and while their not showing it of course atm it is already well under way from my understanding.

PS: if you read on the apple lick off luxology's own site you can read about how their kinda going after an XSI robustness (hopefully even better)

Nando
01-12-2004, 09:20 PM
:D

Thalaxis
01-12-2004, 10:57 PM
Originally posted by Wanker
Modo's "modular" approach makes you assume that you'd have to work in a separate modeler and renderer.

A lot of people would prefer to be working in a combined model/render app, as there are some things that be achieved better that way.

Could Modo's "modules" just be a marketing concept? Maybe Modos foundation as a "3D operating system" could still mean that a combined modeler/renderer may still be achievable.

I think Maxon's modularity is probably more like what Lux is trying
to convey, and yes, it is a marketing thing... it allows them to
target different market segments with the same codebase.

Good for them: more potential sales. Good for the users: they pay
for less of what they're not interested in.

The downside is that upgrades become a bit more complicated.

Overall though, I think it's a good thing.

Beamtracer
01-13-2004, 02:57 AM
Originally posted by Thalaxis
In 8 years of professional software engineering, I've yet to see an
employment contract that does not state that what you produce
for your employer belongs to your employer. That means that my
code is not mine when I leave my company.
I think in terms of Lightwave Modeler, Stuart Ferguson always owned the code, not Newtek. Look at the copyright window on LW Modeler, it says ©Stuart Ferguson.

I think the question could be rephrased the other way around. How did Newtek end up owning Modeler for Lightwave 8?

Each party had some things the other party wanted. Newtek needed to get Modeler, as LW8 would be nothing without Modeler.

Luxology may have wanted some of Layout's code. I don't know, just speculating. Maybe some plug-ins. Ferguson and Hastings also needed to get out of previous contracts with Newtek that would have prevented them working on a rival 3D program.

So, I think some swapping of intellectual property went on before Newtek and Lux arrived at a legal settlement. Both parties are satisfied with the settlement, so it's not really up to us to now criticize it.

When LW8 comes out, it'll be interesting to click on the info box and see who still owns the copyright to Modeler.

CG.p
01-13-2004, 04:01 AM
I really doubt anything in Modo will be legacy code. I'm sure all the functionality that is similar is because a lot of people are used to it or because it is a very good method.

E_Moelzer
01-13-2004, 04:21 AM
Posting this here with permission of William Vaughan (Proton):

http://www.mediastudio-graz.com/images/About_Modeler8.jpg

I think that this should end all discussions in this regard, no?
CU
Elmar

DigitalDeuce
01-13-2004, 04:26 AM
Except my name is still spelled wrong -- really gotta fix that before release

E_Moelzer
01-13-2004, 04:27 AM
Yo, true hehe LOL!
CU
Elmar

Beamtracer
01-13-2004, 04:37 AM
Hehehe :applause:

Well done, Elmar.

You've proven that Newtek now owns all copyright to Lightwave Modeler.

:bowdown:

leuey
01-13-2004, 05:13 AM
Er - I don't know about xsi but Maya's renderview IPR is nothing like G2 (it's more like a much better Viper). Have you played with G2? It's just as much of an analysis tool and post operator as it is a light tweaker. It's not really for tweaking textures - you have to do another F9 and buffer capture everytime you change a texture (aside from the boosts) . Being able to view all the buffers from all the material channels, and all the lights seperately is a big deal that's not present in Maya (don't know about xsi).

anyway,

Greg


Originally posted by CIM
Modo/Nexus really shouldn't need a port of G2. Maya and XSI basically have everything built right into the package that G2 trys to offer (super preview renderer, advanced rendering[sss, absorption, etc], control over surfaces, etc). If Luxology is with it (which they seem to be), they'll provide those sort of things with the base package.

I'm guessing Worley is only there to consult with and maybe provide some algorithms to Luxology.

leuey
01-13-2004, 05:15 AM
Hey Thalaxis - I don't think Stuart ever was an employee of Newtek - I believe he liscensed Modeler to Newtek. I'm sure they worked out some deal when they started up Luxolgy. I know what you're saying though, that's the typical way of it.

fwiw,

Greg


Originally posted by Thalaxis
In 8 years of professional software engineering, I've yet to see an
employment contract that does not state that what you produce
for your employer belongs to your employer. That means that my
code is not mine when I leave my company.



When you want to write portable software, standard
programming languages are the way to go, especially if you want
to support a 3rd party development community through a plugin
SDK.

Thalaxis
01-13-2004, 05:27 AM
Originally posted by leuey
Hey Thalaxis - I don't think Stuart ever was an employee of Newtek - I believe he liscensed Modeler to Newtek. I'm sure they worked out some deal when they started up Luxolgy. I know what you're saying though, that's the typical way of it.

fwiw,

Greg

I was under the impression that he was either an employee or a
consultant for NewTek. And Chuck Baker was quite clear when he
stated that NewTek owned the code for LightWave.

What I don't understand is why this would be considered a bad
thing, though. All it means is that Lux is NOT tweaking LightWave,
but rather developing their own application, and that rather than
copying Modeller to develop Modo, they're just drawing on the
experience that they got in the years that they spent doing
LightWave development.

That experience is what matters, IMO. Just look at pmG. They got
their start in a very similar way, and what they came up with is
VERY different from what they came from.

Beamtracer
01-13-2004, 05:41 AM
Why is Steve Worley's name on the credits for Lightwave 8?

What is an Fxmonkey™?

What are IntelligEntities™?

What is a Multimesh™?

What is P.A.V.L.O.V™?


Who thinks up names like these? :shrug:

CIM
01-13-2004, 05:43 AM
Originally posted by Thalaxis
I was under the impression that he was either an employee or a
consultant for NewTek. And Chuck Baker was quite clear when he
stated that NewTek owned the code for LightWave.

What I don't understand is why this would be considered a bad
thing, though. All it means is that Lux is NOT tweaking LightWave,
but rather developing their own application, and that rather than
copying Modeller to develop Modo, they're just drawing on the
experience that they got in the years that they spent doing
LightWave development.

That experience is what matters, IMO. Just look at pmG. They got
their start in a very similar way, and what they came up with is
VERY different from what they came from.

I think the situation was that Luxology and Newtek came to an understanding: Luxology would use Modeler's code to create a new-generation while Newtek would continue developing the old-generation.

Just because Luxology is using Modeler's source, doesn't mean they're "tweaking" it. Power Animator to Maya wasn't a tweak. Softimage 3D to Softimage XSI was not a tweak.

leuey
01-13-2004, 05:44 AM
I don't know for sure, but I always thought Allen and Stuart had their own thing going on. I think you summed it up very succinctly (ok - i know i spelled that wrong). I'm looking forward to it (the whole thing more so than just the modeler). I enjoyed messiah quite a bit before I got into maya. It's a unique program and it would be nice to see another unique developement.

later,

Greg


Originally posted by Thalaxis
I was under the impression that he was either an employee or a
consultant for NewTek. And Chuck Baker was quite clear when he
stated that NewTek owned the code for LightWave.

What I don't understand is why this would be considered a bad
thing, though. All it means is that Lux is NOT tweaking LightWave,
but rather developing their own application, and that rather than
copying Modeller to develop Modo, they're just drawing on the
experience that they got in the years that they spent doing
LightWave development.

That experience is what matters, IMO. Just look at pmG. They got
their start in a very similar way, and what they came up with is
VERY different from what they came from.

CG.p
01-13-2004, 07:12 AM
Originally posted by Wanker
Why is Steve Worley's name on the credits for Lightwave 8?

Saslite

CG.p
01-13-2004, 07:12 AM
Originally posted by CIM

Just because Luxology is using Modeler's source, doesn't mean they're "tweaking" it. Power Animator to Maya wasn't a tweak. Softimage 3D to Softimage XSI was not a tweak.

Don't mean to pick on you CIM, but

Why the hell can't anyone seem to notice everyone else saying that MODO ISN"T USING LW CODE.

Newtek is developing LW Luxology is developing Modo.

Chewey
01-13-2004, 01:11 PM
Originally posted by CG.p
Don't mean to pick on you CIM, but

Why the hell can't anyone seem to notice everyone else saying that MODO ISN"T USING LW CODE.

Newtek is developing LW Luxology is developing Modo.

Maybe he hasn't read the entire thread yet?
:rolleyes:

proton
01-13-2004, 02:03 PM
Originally posted by Wanker
Why is Steve Worley's name on the credits for Lightwave 8?

What is an Fxmonkey™?

What are IntelligEntities™?

What is a Multimesh™?

What is P.A.V.L.O.V™?


Who thinks up names like these? :shrug:

Those are names that came about in LightWave 6 and 7....

private
01-13-2004, 02:43 PM
Originally posted by E_Moelzer
Posting this here with permission of William Vaughan (Proton):

http://www.mediastudio-graz.com/images/About_Modeler8.jpg

I think that this should end all discussions in this regard, no?
CU
Elmar

Hello Elmar. Interesting. Thanks for the sneak peak, however discussions are discussions. That is now.

But this was then: Around and around in circles about Lux and Lightwave: Click here! (http://www.cgtalk.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=58355&highlight=LightWave+3D%AE)

And the thread that started in all: Two Mommies, sorry no pictures though. (http://www.cgchannel.com/news/showfeature.jsp?newsid=287)

Hopefully all confusion will be ended when Lightwave is either released or Newtek decides post a features list that stays up for more than a day without getting pulled.

Build 517 (8-Jan-2004).......it's getting closer! :)

Thalaxis
01-13-2004, 03:56 PM
Originally posted by CIM
I think the situation was that Luxology and Newtek came to an understanding: Luxology would use Modeler's code to create a new-generation while Newtek would continue developing the old-generation.


Sounds like you still don't get it.

ripLEE
01-13-2004, 04:10 PM
now all we need is brad to post a info box cap and say "Our info box kills your info box" and things could really get schoolyard! :p but then I supose their too busy building apps to be playing on forums. :applause:

"Always the smart arse... never the smart"

Rigley
01-13-2004, 04:16 PM
:)

Beamtracer
01-13-2004, 04:35 PM
Originally posted by private
And the thread that started in all: Two Mommies[/URL] That "Two Mommies" thread seems to be just a cut and paste from an interview Brad did with CGchannel before then.

Yes, Luxology changed their stated objectives and their game plan since then.

So did Newtek. It would also be possible to drag out old threads with Newtek people stating things back then that have changed now.

I don't think the "Us verses Them" thing is all that productive. Any side that demeans the other only succeeds in demeaning themselves.

A lot of Lightwave artists will use both Lightwave 8 and Modo simultaneously. We just have to accept the situation and be mature about it.

CIM
01-13-2004, 10:55 PM
Originally posted by Thalaxis
Sounds like you still don't get it.

No, sounds like YOU (and some others) are the one that doesn't get it. I'm not saying that Luxology has Modeler's source open in front of them and is copying and pasting -- rather they're using it as a reference during development.

Do you really think Stuart memorized every single line of code for Modeler, including the plugins? Get real. :rolleyes: If Luxology didn't use a single peice of Modeler code (for reference at the least), then why are they using the same exact tool names (e.g., Bandsaw, Smooth Shift, etc.)?

Originally posted by CG.p
Newtek is developing LW Luxology is developing Modo.

I said exactly the same thing.

Anyway, who cares what Luxology is using. If it's a great modeler, then that's what matters to me.

Thalaxis
01-13-2004, 11:12 PM
Originally posted by CIM
No, sounds like YOU (and some others) are the one that doesn't get it. I'm not saying that Luxology has Modeler's source open in front of them and is copying and pasting -- rather they're using it as a reference during development.


Why?

While it's possible, I can't say that I see the point. With good
design and solid engineering practice, code just isn't all that big a
deal in the end. The intellectual burden is on the design. Having
your old source code lying around isn't necessary, and if you're
trying to create a brand-spanking-new architecture, it's actually
likely to be counterproductive rather than helpful.

minus
01-14-2004, 01:42 AM
Official release of the LW 8 Features was made public today.
I wonder how this comes into play later with everything.
Public Hub API so that third party applications can communicate directly with Layout and Modeler
Full Feature List is found HERE (http://www.newtek.com/products/lightwave/product/8/features.php#ExpressionEditor)

Beamtracer
01-14-2004, 05:11 AM
If Luxology is writing their applications from scratch, without using legacy code, then you'd think they'd be able to include lots of features that a modern app should have.

Apart from the use of Xcode to assemble the program, you'd expect the whole thing would be multithreaded, which is not the case at the moment with Lightwave.

There are numerous ways a rewrite would boost performance.

Claymation
01-14-2004, 06:04 AM
withe lightwave feature list out I wonder if this will prompt lux to post some kind of list, a video, anything?

Jay

ripLEE
01-14-2004, 06:12 AM
I dont think lux is in copetition directly with Lightwave, atleast I hope not.... If anything they'll be concidering Maya/XSI their main competition.

Unlike alot of their users (the LW crowd) they've moved on to greener pastures I really doubt their concerned at all with whats going on in the NT camp other than out of novalty.... Im sure their setting their sites on the sky.... dont we all?

Griffon
01-14-2004, 06:16 AM
Originally posted by Claymation
withe lightwave feature list out I wonder if this will prompt lux to post some kind of list, a video, anything?

Jay

About the same prompting as Alias or XSI putting out a feature list....

But it was stated on page 1 that Brad was doing videos.

CG.p
01-14-2004, 03:27 PM
Originally posted by minus
Official release of the LW 8 Features was made public today.
I wonder how this comes into play later with everything.

Full Feature List is found

This really belongs here as much as the modo thread belongs in the lightwave forum.

Beamtracer
01-14-2004, 06:06 PM
Any thoughts about multithreading?

Would rewriting the software (as is the case of MODO) assist them to make it completely multithreaded?

Currently, some parts of Lightwave are not multithreaded, so only work on a single processor, even if it is on a dual processor machine.

Claymation
01-14-2004, 06:15 PM
I think it has been said that they used all new code and not just rehashed lightwaves code. So it should be multi-threaded, mlti-processor and probably 64bit ready, at least on the mac.

In any case it has to be an evolution above LW. They've had several years to jump ahead of where LW was when they left.

It will be interesting to see more on modo when the infomration comes out.

Jay

Thalaxis
01-14-2004, 07:27 PM
Originally posted by Claymation
I think it has been said that they used all new code and not just rehashed lightwaves code. So it should be multi-threaded, mlti-processor and probably 64bit ready, at least on the mac.


Given that there aren't any 64-bit tools yet for the mac, and the
OS itself is still 32-bit, that's probably not feasible. Right now, in
order to deploy a 64-bit Modo on their given targets (win, mac)
they'd have to be supporting Itanium. I don't think that's going to
be a high priority target anytime soon.

Multithreading... we'll see; they're not limited by the codebase
(obviously), so it is at least in theory possible. I'd be surprised if
they didn't support it as much as they can, like perhaps a thread
per viewport, or something along those lines.


It will be interesting to see more on modo when the infomration comes out.
Jay

Definitely.

CG.p
01-14-2004, 07:35 PM
Originally posted by Thalaxis
Given that there aren't any 64-bit tools yet for the mac, and the
OS itself is still 32-bit, that's probably not feasible. Right now, in
order to deploy a 64-bit Modo on their given targets (win, mac)
they'd have to be supporting Itanium. I don't think that's going to
be a high priority target anytime soon.


There are plenty of people running a 64 bit Windows with AMD chips. Microsoft hasen't released it publicly...but they have given out a bunch of copies to some people.

Thalaxis
01-14-2004, 07:40 PM
Originally posted by CG.p
There are plenty of people running a 64 bit Windows with AMD chips. Microsoft hasen't released it publicly...but they have given out a bunch of copies to some people.

Quite true... I just doubt that Lux will put much effort into
getting Modo running on XP64/AMD64 while it's still in beta, and
while the 64-bit compilers for AMD64 are also still in beta, at least
not while they're getting ready for their first release.

However, given the way that they described their software
architecture and their ability to port to multiple platforms, it will
most likely be a fairly quick port once XP64/SP2 and the 64-bit
compilers are officially released.

CG.p
01-14-2004, 07:43 PM
That's what I'm hoping. :)

minus
01-14-2004, 08:20 PM
Originally posted by CG.p
This really belongs here as much as the modo thread belongs in the lightwave forum.

CG.p You have to read my entire post (It was only one sentance longer then what you quoted from me... but that sentence was what my entire post was about... and how it relates to MODO).

If my wording was confusing I'll try and be more clear:

1) In the latest Lightwave 8 Features List... it is stated that the API to the HUB will be completely open.... allowing 3rd parties to create software that can communicate with Layout and Modeler directly.

The above numbered sentence seemed to be the sentence you didn't read... (maybe because I wrote it then as a "quote".)

You can find the whole feature list HERE (http://www.newtek.com/products/lightwave/product/8/index.php) if you want to see for yourself.

I don't know if you have used Lightwave or not.. but the HUB allows you to make changes to your model in Lightwaves modeler... and those changes are updated realtime in Lightwaves Layout / Rendering side.

Basically with the HUB API being completely open.. it allows MODO to completely replace Lightwaves modeler... (at least with enough development behind it).... (and also I'll add that's theory).

CG.p
01-14-2004, 09:07 PM
Sorry, that was also kinda in response to the Newtek people jumping in here and posting an about box since all Modo discussions were banned in the Lightwave forum. :)

proton
01-14-2004, 09:18 PM
Originally posted by CG.p
Sorry, that was also kinda in response to the Newtek people jumping in here and posting an about box since all Modo discussions were banned in the Lightwave forum. :)


This appears to have been posted along with the conversation that was already in this thread...or did I miss something.:shrug:

CG.p
01-14-2004, 09:22 PM
E_Moelzer posted it. He is also listed in the about box. It wsn't a random drive by where someone quoted a long lost post. It was a newtek employee/contractor that did it. With "permission from you" no less.

proton
01-14-2004, 09:25 PM
You missed my point....It was posted becuase someone asked about it....nothing more nothing less...

"When LW8 comes out, it'll be interesting to click on the info box and see who still owns the copyright to Modeler." -Wanker

CG.p
01-14-2004, 09:31 PM
But it DID come off as more NewTek marketing than an answer. Hey look here is more LW8 stuff. No one said hey can you post a screenshot of the LW8 about box. A simple sentence from someone could have worked just as well.

Keep in mind that there is still plenty of questions about the Luxology/NewTek issue. Plus when all Modo discussions are kicked out of the Lightwave forum there aren't many places to go. Especially when there are at least three Newtekers that felt the need to post in this thread.

ripLEE
01-14-2004, 09:51 PM
rather interesting twist this thread has taking.... thought I'd make a lil point (it is not to bash nor discredit any1)....

Whats it matter who owns what? I own every1 of michael hedge's CD's it does'nt make me the greatest guitarist the world has ever known.... I own a can of coffee it does'nt make me jaun valdez....

my point being we all know how capable the lux team is (bashing them would be bashing LW) its now urselves/NT that is in its infancy and will have to make the grade..... mind ya I have high hopes and wish the best to both teams (lux/nt) I suspect we can all agree that were going to purchase the best (price vs power of course) toolset we can no madder who makes it... I really wish people would stop seeing lux as the enemy of NT.... they should be concidered seperate and above all that.... Maya/Max/LW/XSI/Lux..... just let them all stand as independant entities and decide who's tools you prefer... if theres any personal crap going on than it should be left between the individuals who are envolved.... not the community... dont we have better things to do.... speaking o wich :D back to work.

proton
01-14-2004, 11:34 PM
I've made zero posts "bashing" Lux or any of it's team. "NewTek" employees didn't make this thread a LW discussion....that happened on it's own from the first few posts....

And any thread that LW or NewTek is discussed I will do my best to read and keep up on as it is an interest to me. I've met many of teh Lux team and have no issue with them....If I have ever posted anything that sounded otherwise please let me know...

jlinhart
01-14-2004, 11:55 PM
I didn't see a problem in this thread either. Someone asked a question about the lw modeler about box and it was answered with a screen grab. While the subject did split away from it's initial subject, that seems to be a norm on the net when so many people have so many interests.

edit: I forgot to add a thanks to Sheep Factory and Mdme Sadie for giving us their feedback on modo.

.jason
www.luxology.net (http://www.luxology.net)

proton
01-15-2004, 12:02 AM
jlinhart- Are you Jason....the guy that gave me the cool Aura demo back in San Antonio?

jlinhart
01-15-2004, 12:09 AM
Originally posted by proton
jlinhart- Are you Jason....the guy that gave me the cool Aura demo back in San Antonio?

Yep that's me. You're the tall guy that did the interactive Inspire docs right. :) (Just kidding, I know who you are.)

.jason
www.luxology.net (http://www.luxology.net)

Griffon
01-15-2004, 12:10 AM
Originally posted by proton
I've made zero posts "bashing" Lux or any of it's team. "NewTek" employees didn't make this thread a LW discussion....that happened on it's own from the first few posts....

And any thread that LW or NewTek is discussed I will do my best to read and keep up on as it is an interest to me. I've met many of teh Lux team and have no issue with them....If I have ever posted anything that sounded otherwise please let me know...

The whole Lux vs. NT thing seems to have historically been driven by two people close to NT but not employees. It then seems to have become gospel. This public rivalry on the boards it a figment, like faeries, elves and eskimoes.

This has been a fairly civil thread. It has been a nice change.

The thread topic meandered a bit and attracted new attention with new topics. Being this is not the Newtek forum, discussions of all apps are allowed.

And in response, no, I've have not seen you post anything negative in our direction.

-Eric "Griffon" Soulvie
Luxology

BinarySoup
01-15-2004, 12:14 AM
I personally feel there's been some misguided focus here on the newtek <-> luxology connection, as for the code debate, I dare assure you that no legacy code from modeler resides in modo, I base this purely on my experience as a developing programmer. to build a new platform such as the one modo seems to be, they'd have to abandon lightwave's current structure. and again as a programmer, when you undertake a project like this you do not paste snippets from earlier projects, even if the functions behave just as they did in earlier projects (although very unlikely), you rewrite them, because no matter how well documented the existing code is or how small the functionality, it cannot be trusted to operate in a new environment in a project such as this. also, in the process of rewriting anything short of a function wrapper, you almost always find things to improve on, and uncover new potential bugs.

the natural reason for people to assume it uses lightwave legacy code is naturally that the authors have a substantial history with lightwave, and that it looks rather like lightwave, especially the subdivision mode renderer.

now, I am not naive enough to think that they do not use their work on lightwave as a reference when developing modo, but that is not the same as using lightwave legacy code in their new product. many lessons where obviously learnt from their work on modeler, going from it's rather closed core architecture to modo's (from what I gather) entirely open.
note that these are speculations based upon my programmer experience, and thus not facts, though I dare wager them to be more correct on most parts.


as for the lurking modo/lightwave animosity in this thread
the fact that a program like Modo is in development does not mean lightwave's modeler is suddenly crap. modo's existence is not a spit in the eye of lightwaver's, nor is a lightwave 8 code copyright screen an attack at modo or it's advocates.

I personally see modo as a way to still use the lightwave modeler environment but at the same time have tools and workflow enhancement that I have grown to miss in modeler.

a LOT of others are perfectly happy with the way modeler operates and the functionality it provides.
what I feel it lacks is based solely on the specific way I model and is therefore purely subjective, which means that if and when I say that I'd like ngons, edgetools or whatever in modeler, I'm not whining (although it may sound like that), merely wishing, and it's definately not an attack on lightwave.

modeler is indeed so close to what I want that I'm looking for something that looks and smells like it but operates slightly different in accordance to my needs, and this is what I hope modo is, or with the proper adjustements will be.

also, whatever gains I hope to gather from using modo over modeler, it's not being a better 3d artist. as lildragon stated earlier in this thread, tools do not make the artist, I could be using modo, and a better artist using lightwave 4.5 would still whip me.

what I hope to gain is optimization of my workflow, being able to improve on modeling stages that take longer time than necessary due to the lack of a certain tool or functionality. I'm not kidding myself into thinking I'll be able to do things in modo that I cannot in lightwave, since from what I've seen of modo sofar, in terms of modeling, all improvements are workflow enhancements.

proton
01-15-2004, 12:25 AM
Originally posted by jlinhart
Yep that's me. You're the tall guy that did the interactive Inspire docs right. :) (Just kidding, I know who you are.)

.jason
www.luxology.net (http://www.luxology.net)

Ahh ...those were the days.....I can remember being very excited about that demo....anyway, I thought it was you and had to ask :)

Nice to see you on cgtalk....:wavey:

ripLEE
01-15-2004, 12:40 AM
Just wanna be clear in my post cuz I guess it might have been contrued differently than I intended...

(it is not to bash nor discredit any1)....

That applied to what I was saying/going to say.

and the people I was talking to as in condemming them for bashing (playing my app can beat up ur app) was not william nor any1 specific (AND NO1 AT EITHER CO)..... Ive just noticed some great unrest between the two softwares in here and elsewhere in the community and I really did'nt feel it was constructive. as I said in my origional post I wish both co's the very best....... I have friends involved on both sides and none of them on either side seem to be engaged in such petty things so I feel the community as a whole should not either........ anyhoooo :p

Nando
01-15-2004, 02:36 AM
:cool:

Beamtracer
01-15-2004, 09:24 AM
Hey, guess what. This thread was locked, and now it's been unlocked again.

A reversal of policy from CGTalk?

For whatever reason, I'm glad the thread is allowed to exist again.

Let the Luxology talk continue!
:applause: :applause: :applause:

Leonard
01-15-2004, 09:25 AM
One mod closed it and some others decided to reopen it. Big deal, forget about it. Keep talking.

1. CGTalk is unbiased about our position on the entire Lux/NewTek issue. Whatever happened is not our problem, we support all software's and platforms that CGTalkers use.

2. Will only open a Lux forum if Luxology endorses us to do so. If you could chip in for us, that'd be great.

3. Please don't *bash* or take personal stabs at moderators or representatives from Lux or NewTek.

Cheers.

L.

Beamtracer
01-15-2004, 09:42 AM
Thanks, Leonard, for the clarification. I'm glad to hear that CGTalk supports all software equally.

I think those who are interested in what Luxology is doing value these threads highly, as there is currently nowhere else to go to discuss Luxology's coming 3D product.

Leonard's suggestion of a dedicated Luxology thread is a great idea. For this to happen I presume Luxology would have to finalize the name of their product. We couldn't have a "Modo" forum if the name was to change.

Thanks again, CGTalk for allowing us to discuss Luxology products.

lildragon
01-15-2004, 11:31 AM
Originally posted by BinarySoup
it's not being a better 3d artist. as lildragon stated earlier in this thread, tools do not make the artist

Where did I say tools make a better artist? I think I was one of the few protesting just the opposite.

-lild

Beamtracer
01-15-2004, 12:37 PM
Tools don't make a better artist.
But tools can make your art better!

Most people here are looking forward to the next generation of software, whether it be from Luxology or Newtek or whoever.

Why do you look forward to it? Because the new tools have features that in some way can make your work much better.

Not everything is art, either. I often think of my work as more of an engineering job. Problem solving. I think "how am I ever going to achieve this?"

In the end, the problems somehow get solved, and the job gets done. I'm looking forward to new tools from Luxology and Newtek to help me get it done a bit easier.

BinarySoup
01-15-2004, 01:08 PM
lidragon wrote:
Where did I say tools make a better artist? I think I was one of the few protesting just the opposite.
?

I wrote "as lildragon stated earlier in this thread, tools do not make the artist ", please note the 'not', which imples that tools do _not_ make a better artist.

now in retrospect I should have quoted your "If you understand the art, you can work with any tool." instead of changing it to something I thought was synominous in meaning. my bad.

lildragon
01-15-2004, 02:06 PM
Ah ok, makes sense, was wondering if I contradicted myself or something :)

And yes wanker I agree with your statement, some peeps seems to misinterpret the two


Tools don't make a better artist. But tools can make your art better!

well back to creating art, carry on

-lild

Nemoid
01-15-2004, 02:20 PM
Both Luxology and Newtek, will give us new tools to work better and easier. so thanx to these great teams! Happy to see they are friends and there's no problem at all.

Soo... maybe I seem a fanboy, but can't really wait for Brad's videos so that we can better understand how Modo will work and its characteristics. :bounce:

And I'm waiting for Lw 8 as well. Incidentally, Nt did a really good job for Lw 8 IMO and I think more has to come :buttrock:

Claymation
01-15-2004, 03:13 PM
Thanks for reopening this thread.

Luxology: Please endorse modo or whatever you will call it. There are only 2 threads on modo (here and 1 in modeling forum)and I'm sure it would be nice to havea place to go to talk about it.

Thalaxis
01-15-2004, 04:55 PM
Equally important is for NewTek and Lux to avoid making each
other out as adversaries.

That said, I think that they've both been doing a pretty good job
of it, in spite of a few hiccups early on. I have a lot of respect for
both the former LightWave team that is now at Lux, as well as
for the new LightWave team at NewTek, so I am rooting for them
both :)

minus
01-15-2004, 08:50 PM
Just as an asside to wonder about what the options are with the Modo modeller... Were there some rumors about V-ray or Brazil making a stand alone renderer?

Nando
01-15-2004, 08:54 PM
Minus,

that would be Brazil :)

on that side note

yog
01-15-2004, 10:17 PM
Originally posted by minus
Just as an asside to wonder about what the options are with the Modo modeller... Were there some rumors about V-ray or Brazil making a stand alone renderer?

The next release of V-Ray (imenent) will again be a MAX plug-in, but the makers are hoping that the following release will be stand alone. Some of the coding for the stand alone version seems to already have been worked on.

Modular programs here we come :thumbsup:

gustojunk
01-16-2004, 12:20 AM
Vray as stand alone is not just a rumor, it's something planned for. In fact Vray for Max is being developed outside of Max and then ported in. Now I'm not use if you can use it as standalone app per se or if it will need to be ported to another hosting application like Maya, Rhino, Lightwave, etc.

I think Vray becoming a plug for Modo would REALLY ROCK!!

I personally can't wait for Modo to be available anyway. From what I saw at Siggraph it seems an awesome option for concept modeling (not just organic and characters)

I think the more high quality modelers, rendering engines, painting plugings, youname it... the better. Competition is a very good thing that keep raising the bar on what we'll see next.

Gustavo

Beamtracer
01-16-2004, 07:55 AM
I hope Luxology doesn't do a special price for Lightwave 8 owners only. Some of Brad's comments hinted at that.

Any special prices should be available to all owners of Lightwave 3D. Otherwise many people will bring forward their Lightwave 8 purchase before they buy Modo.

colkai
01-16-2004, 11:19 AM
Originally posted by Wanker
Otherwise many people will bring forward their Lightwave 8 purchase before they buy Modo.

Huh? - why is that a bad thing? If someone wants to upgrade to [8] and get Modo surely that's a personal choice. If it is still cheaper than buying Modo outright how can it be considered a loss?
And if it isn't cheaper, they don't need to upgrade.
Unless of course you have something against Newtek making money. ;)

E_Moelzer
01-16-2004, 08:48 PM
Hey people!
Just want to state that it never was my intention to turn this thread into a NewTek/LightWave- thread.
In contrary...
It was just that someone had a missconception about the ownership of Modeler and was wondering about waht would be in the about- box of Modeler 8.0, so I decided to post it.
Just wanted to clarify that back then and want to clarify this now.
Sorry, if I caused anyones anger with doing so.
Now I am outa here again and wont interfere anymore (unless someone has a question directed towards me) ;)
CU
Elmar

jlinhart
01-16-2004, 08:53 PM
Originally posted by E_Moelzer
Hey people!
Just want to state that it never was my intention to turn this thread into a NewTek/LightWave- thread.
In contrary...
It was just that someone had a missconception about the ownership of Modeler and was wondering about waht would be in the about- box of Modeler 8.0, so I decided to post it.
Just wanted to clarify that back then and want to clarify this now.
Sorry, if I caused anyones anger with doing so.
Now I am outa here again and wont interfere anymore (unless someone has a question directed towards me) ;)
CU
Elmar

No problem Elmar. I don't think many people took it that way. You provided a direct answer to a question, that's it.

.jason
www.luxology.net (http://www.luxology.net)

Claymation
01-16-2004, 09:01 PM
Jlinhart:

will there be any more movies/interviews/screenshots about modo or luxology anytime soon? I know you're not giving out relase date info but I am interested if there are other cool features not mentioned already or if it will be 64 bit, that kind of thing.

Jay

Thalaxis
01-16-2004, 09:22 PM
I'm hoping for a demo or beta version soon :)

Nemoid
01-16-2004, 09:32 PM
Originally posted by Claymation
Jlinhart:

will there be any more movies/interviews/screenshots about modo or luxology anytime soon? I know you're not giving out relase date info but I am interested if there are other cool features not mentioned already or if it will be 64 bit, that kind of thing.

Jay

that's a queestion! we really want to know more so I hope Brad will complete the movies soon!! :drool:

cryo
01-16-2004, 10:47 PM
yes please.... more movies. I would like alot more info on this program

lildragon
01-17-2004, 12:11 AM
Since alot of folks like those sidewalk chalk drawings, here's a few more

http://www.livejournal.com/users/bouncechrissy/155638.html?

-lild

Beamtracer
01-17-2004, 01:21 AM
Originally posted by E_Moelzer
Hey people!
Just want to state that it never was my intention to turn this thread into a NewTek/LightWave- thread.
In contrary...
It was just that someone had a missconception about the ownership of Modeler Hi Elmar, it was me how asked that question about the ownership of Modeler. I thought your posting of a screenshot was a fair enough response to my incorrect assertion.

I took it in humor!

Originally posted by Claymation
will there be any more movies/interviews/screenshots about modo or luxology anytime soon? I know you're not giving out relase date info but I am interested if there are other cool features not mentioned already or if it will be 64 bit, that kind of thing.
I think that more important than whether it's 64bit is whether it is fully multithreaded. That's where the really big speed boost will come from.

Soon there won't be anyone using single processor machines, so multithreading will be vital.

minus
01-17-2004, 03:20 AM
Originally posted by Wanker


Soon there won't be anyone using single processor machines, so multithreading will be vital.

I do hope that Single processor speeds maintain their errr speed. I mean I have a dual 2Ghz AMD machine that is actually now slower than my latest 3.2 Ghz P4 machine on super multithreaded apps. The fact that the App is very SSE2 optimized is partly the reason why.

I'm not mad that my new single proc machine that I don't love as much as my Dually, is faster. I'm thrilled actually... (speed is good for us). It just feels like it's been a while now since I've had my 3.2 Ghz machine and there still aren't any faster processors out yet. (consumer processors).... I know the AMD FX-blah blah beats it in some respects.. but overall things seemed to have leveled off.

I hope CPU speeds reach at least 10 Ghz before we all start branching off as a society creating then clusters of them all running Multi-threaded apps because it is uneconomical to make the single processors faster.

You never get a 100% speed increase when adding a second processor.... no matter how multi-threaded something is.

SheepFactory
01-17-2004, 03:43 AM
Originally posted by Nemoid
that's a queestion! we really want to know more so I hope Brad will complete the movies soon!! :drool:





Originally posted by Sheep Factory
On a side note ,

Brad said he'll be making some new videos to show modo in action which will be coming out pretty soon , so stay tuned to www.luxology.net





that question is already answered :)

Beamtracer
01-17-2004, 08:05 AM
Originally posted by minus
I hope CPU speeds reach at least 10 Ghz before we all start branching off as a society creating then clusters of them all running Multi-threaded apps because it is uneconomical to make the single processors faster.
What will come is multicore processors. 2 or more processors on a single chip. Add a couple of these chips in your machine and it'll be a 4 way configuration.

Without multithreading it'll only use one processor, or in the case of a multicore processor, it'll only use half that processor.

I'm hoping Nexus/Modo is completely multithreaded. Lightwave currently isn't, so it doesn't perform as well as it should on dual processor machines.

To make an application multithreaded takes a heck of a lot of time and person-hours. That's why it's not viable for some existing applications to be converted.

But Nexus/Modo is supposedly being rewritten from the ground up, so it may then be feasible to multithread the whole thing, making it run really fast on dual processor machines.

A well multithreaded application should give a 90-95% speed increase on a dual proc machine.

simeon.n
01-17-2004, 10:42 AM
I think there is a bit of a misconception about what multithreading will actually do for you as the end user. Think about what a modeler does - most of the time the modeler application is sitting there waiting for your input (I would say up to 90% of the time a modeler is idle and awaiting user input, but it depends on the frequency/speed of your mouse/keystrokes). There are some problems that lend themselves well to being solved with multithreading, rendering being the most obvious example, since the job can be split into two threads of continuous execution. The only time a modeler needs to continuously execute something for a long period of time (that I can think of) is when you subdivide a very dense mesh (eg., try subdividing a ~50,000 poly mesh in LW modeler). The problem is: what do you want to do while your mesh is subdividing? You can't do anything to that mesh while it is being subdivided (since the subdivision algorithm would need to start over to incorporate your changes to the mesh), so the only thing you could do is work on a different object/layer. Subdividing a heavy mesh is a pretty rare occurence though.

One person suggested you might have each viewport in its own thread, the problem with this is - if you think about the function of a viewport - it's only used to display your objects' data. Displaying data is a job for the graphics card, so unless you have a multithreaded graphics card (which would probably handle the multithreading in hardware, and not require the programmer to implement it), multithreading viewports would only create a slowdown.

Originally posted by Wanker
I'm hoping Nexus/Modo is completely multithreaded. Lightwave currently isn't, so it doesn't perform as well as it should on dual processor machines.


Lightwave IS multithreaded. Each window you open (numeric panel, surface editor, etc) is spawned in a new thread. This allows you to have non-modal windows, and it benefits all users regardless of whether they have a single or multiprocessor machine. So you can interact with the numeric panel and see the changes in your Lightwave viewports, multithreading in this case gives you better responsiveness rather than speed. I'm pretty sure the little sample-sphere in the surface editor window is also running in its own thread, so you can adjust the surface settings even while the sample sphere is rendering. A typical computer user is often running hundreds of threads without realising, and on a multiprocessor machine the OS scheduler can offload some of these threads onto a different processor to further increase the feeling of doing many things at once.

Originally posted by Wanker
To make an application multithreaded takes a heck of a lot of time and person-hours. That's why it's not viable for some existing applications to be converted.


This is true. Multithreaded applications are also a nightmare to debug :).

Originally posted by Wanker
But Nexus/Modo is supposedly being rewritten from the ground up, so it may then be feasible to multithread the whole thing, making it run really fast on dual processor machines.

A well multithreaded application should give a 90-95% speed increase on a dual proc machine.

This is not entirely true. A well multithreaded application will give you much better responsiveness, it will give you the 'feeling' that you are doing two or more things at once and all of them are going smoothly (even on a single processor machine). After all, a 3.2Ghz processor could probably catch and respond to many thousands of mouse clicks per second, but you can't possibly work that fast :).

Originally posted by minus
I hope CPU speeds reach at least 10 Ghz before we all start branching off as a society creating then clusters of them all running Multi-threaded apps because it is uneconomical to make the single processors faster.


We already have 10Ghz processors. Your high-end NVIDIA or ATI graphics card is probably comparable to a 10Ghz Pentium 4 for the speed at which it does vector/matrix operations. In fact, there is an interesting project which allows you to compile general purpose code to run directly on the graphics card's GPU, and take advantage of its high speed memory architecture and bandwidth (BrookGPU: http://graphics.stanford.edu/projects/brookgpu/ ).

Sorry for the long post, but multithreading can definately not make things faster all the time. Only if the job is very well suited to being split up and calculated can it benefit from multithreading. Otherwise you can use multithreading to give a feeling of increased responsiveness.

Beamtracer
01-17-2004, 03:37 PM
Simeon, I was thinking about Nexus/Modo as a whole entity, not just a modeling application.

If you think of it like an operating system for 3D, like some people have described it, and that it will eventually have a new renderer, then something like this could really benefit from from multithreading.

While some parts of Lightwave are multithreaded, there are a lot of parts that aren't.

simeon.n
01-17-2004, 04:58 PM
Originally posted by Wanker
Simeon, I was thinking about Nexus/Modo as a whole entity, not just a modeling application.

If you think of it like an operating system for 3D, like some people have described it, and that it will eventually have a new renderer, then something like this could really benefit from from multithreading.


Definately, I agree with you. I was just using a modelling program as an example of an interactive application where the benefits of multithreading are really very subtle. The point I was trying to make is that multithreading will never make an opengl viewport draw faster, or make an application more responsive when you have really heavy scenes loaded.

Originally posted by Wanker
While some parts of Lightwave are multithreaded, there are a lot of parts that aren't.

Which parts of Lightwave do you think are not multithreaded, and would benefit from being made multithreaded?

Just to stay on topic: thanks Sheep Factory for the very cool interview. It's got me looking forward to modo very much :).

Beamtracer
01-17-2004, 05:17 PM
Originally posted by simeon.n
Which parts of Lightwave do you think are not multithreaded, and would benefit from being made multithreaded? A lot of Lightwave exists as plugins. Many of these are not multithreaded. Image filters. Hypervoxels (I think). I think if you went through it you'd find a lot not multithreaded.

I'm probably looking (with rose colored glasses) to Nexus/Modo to provide every feature I wanted that wasn't included with Lightwave!

simeon.n
01-17-2004, 05:50 PM
Originally posted by Wanker
A lot of Lightwave exists as plugins. Many of these are not multithreaded. Image filters. Hypervoxels (I think). I think if you went through it you'd find a lot not multithreaded.

That's true, but is it up to Lightwave to run these plugins in multiple threads? The plugins can do this themselves (the plugin programmer can spawn as many threads as he wants from his plugin). If the host applications starts running each plugin in its own thread you could run into all sorts of issues - especially if the plugins rely on other plugins for data.

I'm probably looking (with rose colored glasses) to Nexus/Modo to provide every feature I wanted that wasn't included with Lightwave!

What Luxology has shown so far has been very impressive. I can't wait to see what else they're working on.

Beamtracer
01-19-2004, 08:46 AM
The "3D operating system" concept of Nexus/Modo seems to indicate an expectation of 3rd party developers to make add-ons.

If Luxology develops a new renderer for this package, you'd think it would be relatively easy for someone to bolt a compositor onto it.

The hard work (the 3D rendering application) would already have been done.

How about a plug-in that can create HDR images out of real photos? I'm trying to think what other applications you could make, using an existing 3D renderer.

Nemoid
01-20-2004, 02:09 PM
Watching in Lux website there are a lot of good partners wich could do great add ons to their products, and surely in the industry there are many indeed. (think at Worley labs or Messiah guys)
I like the fact of a opened and good 3D OS, in wich you could add smoothly working good plugins with no problems at all.This is partucularly related to scripting languages and structure of the app.
Also, plugins developers (even solo users will find fantastic that their plugs will fit very well in Modo.

This being said , I can't wait to see and know more about Lux technologies and what exactly will be their direction.and hope to see new funny and powerful tools for modeling in Modo.

Rigley
01-21-2004, 01:25 PM
I am really looking forward seeing those demo(do) videoes by Brad... I hope its coming soon.

Beamtracer
01-21-2004, 06:22 PM
Originally posted by Nemoid
Watching in Lux website there are a lot of good partners wich could do great add ons to their products, and surely in the industry there are many indeed. (think at Worley labs or Messiah guys) I just rechecked the Luxology website to remind myself of the list of companies they are partnering with:

Apple, Intel, AMD
(Companies that control computer platforms)

3Dlabs, nVidia
(makers of graphic acceleration cards)

Digital Domain, Eden FX
(Production houses)

Namco, Interplay
Gaming companies

Time Magazine, New Riders
(print)

Curious Labs
(makes Poser software)

Worley Labs
(the major Lightwave plug-in maker)

Project Messiah Group
(innovative character animation tools)

Evasion 3D
(another big Lightwave plug-in maker)

Joe Alter inc
(hair making software)


Some of these partners are obvious, like Apple, AMD and Intel.

Others are more intriguing.

New Rider books is the publisher of Dan Ablan's 'Inside Lightwave' books. Could Ablan be planning a tutorial book to cover Luxology's products?

Graphics card maker ATI is not on the list.

The inclusion of Digital Domain, EdenFX, Time, Namco and Interplay indicates the intended markets that Luxology wants to get into.

Project Messiah Group would always make an interesting alliance with Luxology. I even think these two companies should merge, as they're both ex-Newtekers, each with essential components of a 3D system that the other could use.

If Lux just incorporated PMG's character tools into Nexus/Modo, we'd have a pretty compelling combination.

Nemoid
01-21-2004, 08:56 PM
Well, pardon me but this list make me :drool:
everytime i see it.(ok maybe not just like a sexy woman)

Foe Apple i saw that Lux products did their shows mainly at Apple related events abd we also know X tools were and are used in developing

For Worley I really have no words, because its the best plugin maker i ever see for Lw, wich make the app work in different and efficient ways. really i couldn't imagine what they can project for an opened environment like Modo

never used Messiah, but i know its tools are very good for animation and rigging. really if they will join Lux in some way it would be fantastic, even if i see they have their own products right now.

maybe things will go a bit slowly, introducing only Modo at first, wich will fit very well in all pipelines even using different apps like Maya or so or also side by side with Lw as well, but what i am interested to are also other possible products regarding animation and possibly rendering.

don't like speculating so much though.
so, hope Modo will arrive soon to have some new infos.

Beamtracer
01-22-2004, 03:48 AM
Nemoid, I don't think you have to worry about the list of companies working with Luxology.

Many of the plugin makers are already make plugins for multiple 3D packages (like Joe Alter). I'm sure they'll continue to support their existing 3D platforms as well as Luxology. I'm sure Worley will also support both Newtek and Lux. At one stage I seem to remember that Worley was considering supporting 3DS Max.

Lux has not only demoed at Mac events. The main demo of Modo took place at the Siggraph conference last year, a general expo for the CG industry.

Brad Peebler has praised the new model Macs (G5). I think this is because other 3D software makers have neglected the Mac somewhat in recent years. By saying a few kind words about the Mac, Luxology could attract a lot of Mac users who were disenchanted by other 3D companies.

Don't forget that Luxology also said that most of their programmers have a Windows background, so PC users will be well catered for.

ages
01-22-2004, 01:46 PM
Noone really knows the plugin acticture of Modo, infact not much is known about Modo itself, we have to remember its a modeler so maybe it will like the ls scripts but no plugings are needed?
Griffon can u vouch for this?

I once asked Brad if Lux was macsavvy, he emailed me two pics, one of him woking with his xserve the other with a team of 8 working all on powerbooks..

Nemoid
01-22-2004, 01:55 PM
Originally posted by Wanker
Nemoid, I don't think you have to worry about the list of companies working with Luxology.

Many of the plugin makers are already make plugins for multiple 3D packages (like Joe Alter). I'm sure they'll continue to support their existing 3D platforms as well as Luxology. I'm sure Worley will also support both Newtek and Lux. At one stage I seem to remember that Worley was considering supporting 3DS Max.

Lux has not only demoed at Mac events. The main demo of Modo took place at the Siggraph conference last year, a general expo for the CG industry.

Brad Peebler has praised the new model Macs (G5). I think this is because other 3D software makers have neglected the Mac somewhat in recent years. By saying a few kind words about the Mac, Luxology could attract a lot of Mac users who were disenchanted by other 3D companies.

Don't forget that Luxology also said that most of their programmers have a Windows background, so PC users will be well catered for.


I'm not worried at all ! never said I was worried. :eek:
Happy with the list and related things, and also happy of both Mac /PC platform support. :scream:

Beamtracer
01-22-2004, 02:15 PM
I'd still like to see Brad give a rough estimate of when something will be on the market. It helps to be able to plan software purchases.

Someone once wrote that Brad had said privately that Lux was aiming to release Modo in Q1, 2004. That would be sometime in the next two months.

In the interview that started this thread, Brad was not going to be pinned down to any release date, but when asked if it would be out "this year" he was adamant that it would be, without a doubt.

Actually, it would be hard to be in Brad's position in an interview like that. Anything could be requoted months later if plans change.

Maybe we could say Modo will be released sometime after March, but well before the end of the year? Just guessing.

Insider
01-22-2004, 05:04 PM
[QUOTE]New Rider books is the publisher of Dan Ablan's 'Inside Lightwave' books. Could Ablan be planning a tutorial book to cover Luxology's products?


It's been discussed.


:)

Beamtracer
01-22-2004, 11:24 PM
Originally posted by Insider
[QUOTE]New Rider books is the publisher of Dan Ablan's 'Inside Lightwave' books. Could Ablan be planning a tutorial book to cover Luxology's products?


It's been discussed.


:)

Hey, it's the famous Dan Ablan himself!

The little smiley face at the end of your post gives me the impression that something positive may happen in that regard.

When Nexus/Modo (or whatever it is called) is released, it would be great to have some courseware to show us through the new workflow.

Maybe a book titled "Inside Modo 1" ;)

ChristianFischer
01-22-2004, 11:34 PM
does anyone who saw modo in action know if it has an integrated bone-system?

regards chris

CG.p
01-22-2004, 11:41 PM
It is just a modeler right now. Bones would be an animation feature.

ChristianFischer
01-22-2004, 11:55 PM
in the lightwave modeler you have got skelegons and in release 8 - i heard - you can test the deformation directly inside of the modeler .. thats why i thought that modo maybe also has this feature ... would be nice :)

CG.p
01-23-2004, 12:06 AM
Maybe...we'll see. :)

KillMe
01-23-2004, 12:17 AM
from what little i've seen of modo jsut about any of the lightwave training material will be valid jsut with afew extra toys to play with like edges and you can disreguard any of the the bits that said you cant sub patch n-gons =)

be interesting to see it when it comes out though - if its not to expensive i might add a copy to my toolset as the uv toosl and being able to cut those sub d's and play with edges would half be nice

that said perhaps 8.x will provide these tools soon too

Nemoid
01-23-2004, 01:50 PM
In Lw you have skelegons in modeler, and there's a plug wich can rotate them to test them with weights , called rotate skelegon, but actually, in Lw [8] you will be able to rig you char with bones entirely in Layout (animation ) and this will be very powerful. so you will have skelegons in modeler, while bone setup tools in Layout.

the difference between Lw and Modo FOR NOW is that Lw is a good 3D complete general app, while Modo is a subpatch modeler and so maybe rigging willbe a completed in another animation app , wich could surely be Lw, Maya , Max etc. and maybe also a Lux future app.

Lw modeler has a lot of good tools and you can visit also Newtek homepage to see Lw[8] modeler new tools feature list. it has no edges support and n-gons subpatches and construction history, though.

Maybe we'll se smth for 8.x releases because these tools and features are asked by many users, but Newtek had to enhance greatly Layout's features for animation and workflow. so they focused more on animation for [8] while they'll focus on other Lw areas soon. :)

KillMe
01-23-2004, 11:48 PM
proton made a rather cryptic remark that seemed to suggest at least n-gon subpatches were on teh way but perhaps he was replying to somethign else but it seemed like he was saying wait and see young padawan :thumbsup:

true edges now that would be nice so yeah lets hope for 8.x if its got these two alone i doubt i would bother with modo unless its very attractively priced

playmesumch00ns
01-24-2004, 12:08 AM
I think lildragon hit the nail on the head on like the second page. Why bother having a dedicated modeller to add yet another stage to the pipeline, not to mention the licensing costs, when Maya or XSI has a perfectly good modeller included already?

CG.p
01-24-2004, 12:12 AM
Originally posted by playmesumch00ns
Why bother having a dedicated modeller to add yet another stage to the pipeline, not to mention the licensing costs, when Maya or XSI has a perfectly good modeller included already?

Along with their own obnoxious licensing costs.

leuey
01-24-2004, 12:28 AM
I'll probably look into buying it b/c even though I find myself using maya more and more and LW less - I still hate modelling in maya (I should clarify - I hate poly and sub-d modelling in maya). And I'm not alone. Who knows but I think it will probably end up being prettty popular. Besides, if your department is broken down - it would be cheaper (I think) to outfit lower end workstations w/ modo to output geometry.

later,

Greg


Originally posted by playmesumch00ns
I think lildragon hit the nail on the head on like the second page. Why bother having a dedicated modeller to add yet another stage to the pipeline, not to mention the licensing costs, when Maya or XSI has a perfectly good modeller included already?

CIM
01-24-2004, 02:25 AM
Originally posted by playmesumch00ns
Why bother having a dedicated modeller to add yet another stage to the pipeline, not to mention the licensing costs, when Maya or XSI has a perfectly good modeller included already?

Why bother using PRMan or mental ray when there's Maya's software renderer? Why bother using MEL when you can wait for Alias to code every tool you'd ever need? Why bother using a compositor when you can wait ages to do things in the renderer?

I think alot of ppl. and studios will add Modo to their pipeline, simply because they want the better tool for the job at hand. This is why alot of ppl. use Wings 3d or another standalone modeler. Not because they can't work in Maya or XSI, but they simple find the standalone approach better.

Nemoid
01-24-2004, 02:30 PM
Agree, even if I'd like to see some more great modelling features in Lw to use only one app to get the job done.
But we know there's not the perfect app and that many things have to be made with other softwares, like composition post processing and editing.
And so, mixed pipeline IS the way to go.
I'd be very happy to find an app wich allows an easier mixed pipeline just like Modo seems to offer. :scream:

CG.p
01-26-2004, 05:08 AM
Can't wait for those new videos. I just hope that we can get at least one where the demo person doesn't have to yell over the crowd. :)

:thumbsup:

Beamtracer
01-26-2004, 10:15 AM
The Modo videos from Siggraph were technically really badly made.

The camera was handheld. Due to modern intra-frame video compression, the download file size of a hand held shot is many times larger than if the camera was put on a tripod.

Brad, if you're reading this, please keep the images still (either tripod or screen shot). Use a good compresser (like QT Sorenson) and up the key-frame rate to reduce the file size.

CG.p
01-26-2004, 04:34 PM
Originally posted by Wanker
The Modo videos from Siggraph were technically really badly made.

those were also done by some "news" websites, not by Luxology themselves. That is why I'm expecting them to be a little better. They have a controlled enviroment with no one screaming to pull booth visitors away. :)

Beamtracer
01-27-2004, 10:00 PM
I really want to know what kind of renderer Luxology will release. Brad seemed to avoid this question (on page 1 of this thread). I suppose that's fair enough, as he doesn't want to give competitors too much info too early.

I've never used Project Messiah software, but I understand it now has a renderer included. I wonder if this renderer could be incorporated into Luxology's offerings? The two companies are "partners" aren't they?

Then again, Lux has a vast amount of knowledge about building a renderer, so it's probably more likely that they'd build their own.

I'd really like to know so I can decide if I should buy some other brand of renderer or wait a bit longer to see what Lux will come out with.

CG.p
01-27-2004, 10:06 PM
It would seem that, given your thoughs, the user would model in modo and then load the model into messiah for animation and rendering. Until Luxology announces work on any other part of the pipelines.

Beamtracer
01-28-2004, 08:52 PM
Originally posted by CG.p
It would seem that, given your thoughs, the user would model in modo and then load the model into messiah for animation and rendering. Until Luxology announces work on any other part of the pipelines. I never used Messiah. Is it any good at rendering? I know it's famous for its character tools.

Other companies who sell their 3D app as modules (Cinema 4D comes to mind) offer a discount to those who buy the whole package.

I worry that if Luxology releases one component first (Modo?) then other modules later, it might get more expensive, as we can't buy the whole lot in the beginning.

Lux really needs to offer some big discounts to those who are early adopters.

Ejecta
01-28-2004, 09:09 PM
Originally posted by Wanker
Lux really needs to offer some big discounts to those who are early adopters.

They will. :thumbsup:

CG.p
01-28-2004, 09:10 PM
http://www.projectmessiah.com they have some nice renders on the pages.

ripLEE
01-29-2004, 06:38 AM
I would just like to point out that at the last SIGG I guess modo was just shown in a cubical off the main floor and a good friend o mine and AMAZING modeler Giovanni Nakpil aka Gio.... I'm assuming those of you atlest in the professional community are well aware of his work.... said Modo was the thing that most impressed, excited him.... seeing as they already have a incredibly robust and exclusive prop subdiv modeler at their shop I'd say thats a mighty strong recommendation..... The Lux team is going to kick arse in everything they do.... any skepticism will be swallowed by the blind tho I am more excited to see how nexus turns out I have no doubts modo will change the way we work and greatly inhance our arsenal... if your a hobbiest and werkflow is not important to ya just stick to what ya got. blah

ages
01-29-2004, 07:49 AM
Originally posted by Wanker
I really want to know what kind of renderer Luxology will release. Brad seemed to avoid this question (on page 1 of this thread). I suppose that's fair enough, as he doesn't want to give competitors too much info too early.

I've never used Project Messiah software, but I understand it now has a renderer included. I wonder if this renderer could be incorporated into Luxology's offerings? The two companies are "partners" aren't they?

Then again, Lux has a vast amount of knowledge about building a renderer, so it's probably more likely that they'd build their own.

I'd really like to know so I can decide if I should buy some other brand of renderer or wait a bit longer to see what Lux will come out with. ]

Not many 3rd party renderers available on mac side so this will be interetsing..

ages
01-29-2004, 07:49 AM
Originally posted by Wanker
I really want to know what kind of renderer Luxology will release. Brad seemed to avoid this question (on page 1 of this thread). I suppose that's fair enough, as he doesn't want to give competitors too much info too early.

I've never used Project Messiah software, but I understand it now has a renderer included. I wonder if this renderer could be incorporated into Luxology's offerings? The two companies are "partners" aren't they?

Then again, Lux has a vast amount of knowledge about building a renderer, so it's probably more likely that they'd build their own.

I'd really like to know so I can decide if I should buy some other brand of renderer or wait a bit longer to see what Lux will come out with. ]

Not many 3rd party renderers available on mac side so this will be interetsing..

CG.p
01-29-2004, 04:34 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by ripLEE
[B]I would just like to point out that at the last SIGG I guess modo was just shown in a cubical off the main floor and a good friend o mine and AMAZING modeler Giovanni Nakpil aka Gio.

Gio has him some mad modeling skillz. :)


I'm glad to see his is excited about it.

Beamtracer
02-03-2004, 11:13 AM
Originally posted by ages
]Not many 3rd party renderers available on mac side so this will be interetsing.. I don't know. I think there's a good selection of renderers on the Mac platform.

Mentalray

Renderman

You want more?

For some reason I always think of Project Messiah as a character animation tool, rather than a renderer. If PMG want to join forces with Luxology, they'll have to go cross platform and do that long awaited Mac OS X port.

What do people use Maya for? I don't think it's the renderer. People use Maya because of its character tools and its extensibility. Luxology will offer both of these (if they include PMG), plus a world class modeler.

MarkCurtis
02-03-2004, 01:29 PM
Originally posted by Wanker
I don't know. I think there's a good selection of renderers on the Mac platform.

Mentalray

Renderman

You want more?

For some reason I always think of Project Messiah as a character animation tool, rather than a renderer. If PMG want to join forces with Luxology, they'll have to go cross platform and do that long awaited Mac OS X port.

What do people use Maya for? I don't think it's the renderer. People use Maya because of its character tools and its extensibility. Luxology will offer both of these (if they include PMG), plus a world class modeler.

When did PRman become available for the Mac platform?
Are you referring to that old non supported version?

Thalaxis
02-03-2004, 02:51 PM
Originally posted by MarkCurtis
When did PRman become available for the Mac platform?
Are you referring to that old non supported version?

1) He said RenderMan, which is neither PRMan nor even a
renderer to begin with.

2) AFAIK PIXAR announced OSX support for PRMan recently, but I
don't know whether or not it's available yet, so if it's not it's only
a matter of time, and probably not all that much time at that.

Griffon
02-03-2004, 06:35 PM
Originally posted by Thalaxis
1) He said RenderMan, which is neither PRMan nor even a
renderer to begin with.


A technicality. If you say Renderman, everyone knows you are talking about Pixar's PhotoRealistic RenderMan.

2) AFAIK PIXAR announced OSX support for PRMan recently, but I
don't know whether or not it's available yet, so if it's not it's only
a matter of time, and probably not all that much time at that.

Pixar has shown it running on the G5 at Siggraph, but I don't think it is actually available yet.

Thalaxis
02-03-2004, 06:40 PM
Originally posted by Griffon
A technicality. If you say Renderman, everyone knows you are talking about Pixar's PhotoRealistic RenderMan.


That's only because most people are too ignorant to know any
better. It doesn't make it any more correct, since the term
"RenderMan" could be applied to Aqsis, AIR, 3DLight, RenderDotC,
and a number of other renderers that are not PRMan.

Lockstar
02-06-2004, 08:43 PM
Does anyone happen to have copies of the Modo preview movies. They seem to have vanished from Rendernode and CGChannel.

CG.p
02-06-2004, 09:36 PM
Yeah. The cgchannel stuff was a joke. They kept posting that they had three or four hours of video to sort through and then nothing.....

ages
02-07-2004, 09:26 AM
Originally posted by Wanker
I don't know. I think there's a good selection of renderers on the Mac platform.

Mentalray

Renderman

You want more?

For some reason I always think of Project Messiah as a character animation tool, rather than a renderer. If PMG want to join forces with Luxology, they'll have to go cross platform and do that long awaited Mac OS X port.

What do people use Maya for? I don't think it's the renderer. People use Maya because of its character tools and its extensibility. Luxology will offer both of these (if they include PMG), plus a world class modeler.

Wanker isnt menatl ray only available when u buy Maya?
Also do we still have lightscape or did we ever have it?
Vray available too?
tell us all the 3rd party renderers u know of.

private
02-07-2004, 09:36 AM
Originally posted by CG.p
Yeah. The cgchannel stuff was a joke. They kept posting that they had three or four hours of video to sort through and then nothing.....

I couldn't agree more. It was a weird way to try to drum up hits etc. Quite a waste of time.

CG.p
02-07-2004, 05:11 PM
Originally posted by private
I couldn't agree more. It was a weird way to try to drum up hits etc. Quite a waste of time.

What was weird were the freaks that slammed Modo on cgtalk but went on and on about how they were interested in it and want to know more on cgchannel's forums.

Nemoid
02-09-2004, 12:56 AM
LOL!

however... i don't want to appear harsh, but.. where these supposed Modo new movies are? :eek:

its passed quite a lot of time since they were announced in some way...:shrug:

Beamtracer
02-10-2004, 11:00 PM
Originally posted by ages
isnt menatl ray only available when u buy Maya?
Answer:
"mental ray has been integrated into Softimage|3D and Softimage|XSI, Autodesk 3ds max, Alias|Wavefront Maya, Side Effects Software's Houdini 5, SolidWorks PhotoWorks 2, and Dassault Système's CATIA V4 and V5 products. A number of translators and translator plug-ins allow for using mental ray in conjuction with various 3D modeling and animation front-end systems."
http://www.mentalimages.com/2_1_0_mentalray/index.html

Are you looking for another renderer to go with MODO?

Beamtracer
02-18-2004, 09:56 PM
Luxology should announce something concrete now.

The reason is that Newtek is selling Lightwave 8 like hotcakes, by offering bundles and prerelease deals.

Most of us can't afford to purchase two 3D applications. When we put our money down for Lightwave 8, there may not be enough money to buy a second modeling application (Modo) no matter how good it may be. The money will be spent.

satoribomb
02-18-2004, 11:46 PM
Don't hold your breath there, Wanker. Lux has been working on this for a while, and if their aim is to release a solid product, I doubt that they're too worried about LW8's imminent release, or releasing details before they're ready to.

Still, I'm with you on hoping for more info soon. My mouth is getting dry from salivating too long over Modo's possibilities! I can't stand the wait much longer. C'mon Lux - help us out here! Let us know what's going on!

Now I'm off to get a glass of water - I'm parched...

Satoribomb

Beamtracer
02-23-2004, 02:14 AM
I think that Luxology has got to be developing a rendering application, as well as Modo.

Stuart Ferguson (formerly with Newtek, now with Luxology) is the modeling guru. I'm sure Modo is mainly his baby.

But Alan Hastings is the rendering genius. Luxology has so much in-house expertise on building renderers that I can't imagine that they wouldn't be developing one.

These are the guys who developed the Lightwave 3D renderer as we know it today. In its time, this renderer was the best one out there.

There's too much talent at Lux to not put that rendering expertise to good use.

CIM
02-23-2004, 03:03 AM
Originally posted by Wanker
I think that Luxology has got to be developing a rendering application, as well as Modo.

Stuart Ferguson (formerly with Newtek, now with Luxology) is the modeling guru. I'm sure Modo is mainly his baby.

But Alan Hastings is the rendering genius. Luxology has so much in-house expertise on building renderers that I can't imagine that they wouldn't be developing one.

These are the guys who developed the Lightwave 3D renderer as we know it today. In its time, this renderer was the best one out there.

Luxology showed the animation and rendering (and more) part of their Nexus program, last Siggraph, to select ppl.

I'm not sure why you'd consider LW's renderer to ever have been the best, when PRMan and mental ray have been around just as long if not longer. I think what you mean is that LW's renderer could once have been considered to have one of the better renderers.

Thalaxis
02-23-2004, 05:06 AM
Originally posted by CIM
I'm not sure why you'd consider LW's renderer to ever have been the best, when PRMan and mental ray have been around just as long if not longer. I think what you mean is that LW's renderer could once have been considered to have one of the better renderers.

The fact that it's been around for a long time doesn't have any
relationship to whether or not it's any good, let alone whether or
not it's the best.

CIM
02-23-2004, 05:46 AM
Originally posted by Thalaxis
The fact that it's been around for a long time doesn't have any
relationship to whether or not it's any good, let alone whether or
not it's the best.


When ppl. say "LW's renderer was the best", they seem to forget that PRMan and mental ray were around then.

Beamtracer
02-23-2004, 06:45 AM
Originally posted by CIM
Luxology showed the animation and rendering (and more) part of their Nexus program, last Siggraph, to select ppl. I wonder why Luxology showed their renderer only to a small group of people? Why not make a public announcement, "we are working on a renderer". Anyway, it's good news that such a thing is in development.

I've been a Lightwave user for some years. I like the program, but I'm not 100% happy with the direction that Newtek is taking it. Workflow issues are not being addressed particularly well.

Lightwave was once one of the best renderers around (if I say "the best" it'll cause too much debate). More recently, the Lightwave renderer has been neglected somewhat. This worries me.

I don't have any loyalty to any software company. What I care more about is that there is a viable upgrade path for the software that I now use. I don't care if it comes from Newtek or Luxology. I'll wait and see what both companies produce before putting my money down.

I'm interested in Luxology because I know they are what was the entire Lightwave development team. I know they have enough talent and expertise to build a great renderer. I hope they come out with a high-end 3D application that professionals and production companies will adopt.

gerardo
02-23-2004, 06:55 AM
When ppl. say "LW's renderer isn´t the best one", they seem never to have used LW. :)



Gerardo

Nemoid
02-23-2004, 10:12 AM
Maybe Lux want to avoid the Sumatra/XSI effect and go in the market with a rockin solid app,since 1.0 was it Modo or Nexus !:scream: that's why they don't make exact announces.

however they could give us some good movies of Modo.

They surely have a good team of experts in many fields, but making an app takes time and a great effort, especially if they want to innovate.

Beamtracer
02-25-2004, 08:44 AM
Luxology has to be revolutionary.

There are a lot of 3D apps on the market. Expensive ones, cheap ones. Modelers, renderers. It's already a crowded market. The only way Luxology can break into this is if they release a product that is so revolutionary that it will cause people to abandon their existing apps and switch.

Either they go for the high-end, and charge a lot of money. Or (more likely) they go for mass sales.

They can still have a reasonably priced product that has high-end features and cost a lot of money in R&D to create, but they only way they'll succeed this way is to have lots of unit sales.

I wish them well. They have the talent to come out with a revolutionary product.