New LW8 Review

[lwbob]

Shadow color should affect shading as well: Shadow color currently does not affect an object's shading, making this great feature nearly useless. We end up with one color of shadow and a different color of shading.
Sounds like the idea is lost on the reviewer. The feature people asked for was to just be able to change the color of the shadow. This feature was introduced in 7.x not 8.0.

The weaknesses section sounds more like the authors wishlist than the weakness list anyway.

[frogchild]

I'm a big fan of Lightwave. I still think it's the best packege out there for individuals or smaller houses.

But even with it's added improvments the animation system isn't as tight as I would like it to be.

[posetopose]

As a Maya user w/ 5+ years experience, using LW makes me want to rip my hair out.

It's a great program, but some of the ways it does things are soooooo strange...

Then again, I'm sure Maya is the same way to a LW veteran.

[BillB]

Sounds like the idea is lost on the reviewer. The feature people asked for was to just be able to change the color of the shadow. This feature was introduced in 7.x not 8.0.

If there's one thing Nicholas knows it's lighting...

[Para]

Then again, I'm sure Maya is the same way to a LW veteran.

I'm not an LW veteran (I've been using LW for only 2 years) but I already have problems with other programs strange ways of doing things so yes, it's the same for LW users too :)

[Miroku]

Quote:
Shadow color should affect shading as well: Shadow color currently does not affect an object's shading, making this great feature nearly useless. We end up with one color of shadow and a different color of shading.

Sounds like the idea is lost on the reviewer. The feature people asked for was to just be able to change the color of the shadow. This feature was introduced in 7.x not 8.0.

The weaknesses section sounds more like the authors wishlist than the weakness list anyway.
Sounds like a very valid complaint to me.

[policarpo]

A rose is a rose is a rose.


Enough said.:wise:

[Capt Lightwave]

If there's one thing Nicholas knows it's lighting...


Yup, and he's quite right, it's useless until the shading is affected, just as he said.

[LiQ]

Dammit Newtek have NO PR. Nobody knows who they are - I mean if you mention discreet or alias most people know what they make, mention newtek, and they look at your strange.

Perhaps the budget for new features went into PR, so soon they will start sponsoring things and rolling out ads.

Why can't they do both like everyone else?:sad:

[darkchyld88]

As for rendering, there are few alternatives to LightWave in terms of render quality, although others have been catching up.
this was taken from the article and while I was reading it I thought that this was quite a silly comment, not to say that LW renderer is bad, it is good actually but among the more common in the industry are still renderman, mental ray, brazil, vray and they are definetely nowhere catching up to LW renderer they are at times even way ahead of it.

[CIM]

this was taken from the article and while I was reading it I thought that this was quite a silly comment, not to say that LW renderer is bad, it is good actually but among the more common in the industry are still renderman, mental ray, brazil, vray and they are definetely nowhere catching up to LW renderer they are at times even way ahead of it.

Yeah, you'd think a professional would not pepper such laughably untrue information throughout his review.

[cappie]

hmm.. I don't want to sound like a fool, but instead of staying ignorant, I'd rather ask:

Whats the difference between a shadow and shading? and whats the problem with colored shadows and shading in LW ? (idiots explanation please ;))

[NUKE-CG]

That review is just, weird, lots of comments which are probably not needed.

[blacknoise]

it's a cool feature but "I haven't actually tried this myself yet"

"LightWave [8] could be enhanced, just like any work in progress."

this review sucks. he said a lot and it was nothing i didnt know already.
i thought he wants to say "hey dammit... im a pro and newtek should add this and this to the lw"

myself i would rather spend 9k on xsi 4 advanced, than 1.5k on lw 8... or even 9. i dont care... but this review was the worst ive ever read.

bn

[TheFreak]

this was taken from the article and while I was reading it I thought that this was quite a silly comment, not to say that LW renderer is bad, it is good actually but among the more common in the industry are still renderman, mental ray, brazil, vray and they are definetely nowhere catching up to LW renderer they are at times even way ahead of it.
OK I could just be making a fool out of myself here but it wouldn't be the first time. But i would assume that he means it's a good renderer without additonal 3rd party renderers such as Renderman, Mental Ray or Brazil. If this is not the case then it was indeed a little odd as a statement.

To be honest i use LW and i love it, the Modelling is great and, well, i am just really getting into Layout but i found the review a little fluffly. I was expecting a little more grit on his thoughts on the update.

[faulknermano]

hmm.. I don't want to sound like a fool, but instead of staying ignorant, I'd rather ask:

Whats the difference between a shadow and shading? and whats the problem with colored shadows and shading in LW ? (idiots explanation please ;))

well i think what he means is this: if you have a blue colored object and have a light casting a red shadow, the shadow becomes red, instead of purple.

[Galo]

I hoped on a better article than this, this was mentioned before in other articles, f.e. CAM last issue had an article about LW8, this is all sayd, and if you have not used and experienced LW8 to it's full potential you can not really judge it imho as goes for any other package.

-Galo

[andy_maxman]

Then again, I'm sure Maya is the same way to a LW veteran.
and to a maxman too......pivots...grouping.....

[faulknermano]

and to a maxman too......pivots...grouping.....
... and addDoubleLinear node, samplerInfo node, node here! node there! :banghead: :banghead:

[faulknermano]

and no i'm not taking away your job from you...

yes you are. :D funny sig.

btw: your avatar: super cute kid. your son? or you? :D

[CIM]

OK I could just be making a fool out of myself here but it wouldn't be the first time. But i would assume that he means it's a good renderer without additonal 3rd party renderers such as Renderman, Mental Ray or Brazil. If this is not the case then it was indeed a little odd as a statement.

Actually, his comments insinuate that LightWave has the best renderer and that all others are desperately trying to catch up, which is far from the truth.

[Miyazaki]

The problem with this review is that it´s hard if not impossible to show something about LW that isn´t a catch up. That would be ok.
But... dynamics and character animation, the 'big enhancements' in LW8 are disappointing and still nowhere near they could b .:sad:
As hard as it sounds LW is a follower in every area and lacks so much.
LightWave isn't perfect yet, but then what 3D software is? sounds more like an excuse to justify the shortcomings.
Sorry

[andy_maxman]

and no i'm not taking away your job from you...

yes you are. :D funny sig.

btw: your avatar: super cute kid. your son? or you? :Dnaaaa.....sweetheart......i'm not........things are just falling into place....
maybe u wanna go thru this - http://www.cgtalk.com/showthread.php?t=153698


yup: thats my superCute son..... we call him Yash
thanksBuddy...

[Naseem]

I’v ben using Lightwave ever sense ver 4.0 got released and I cant judge a program from its new features without potting them to a serious test not just a bouncing ball on a collection plate, but as the article says testing the product through a working production, and seeing the features working. And for the Rendering I agree it’s a good render engine, other programs use 3rd party render plugins, in order to have smooth results, and Lightwave can offer that with its original engine.

I’m having the same disappointment in the new layout features but then again I didn’t started seriously testing it to the limit, that’s y I cant point out my opinion be4 that.

As the article said the modeling tools are without any doubts are the best in the market, I been using Maya it also has a promising modeling tools I cant ignore that but if u compare the modeling speed between Lightwave vs an other program they will lose. There should be a benchmark for 3D softwares as Video cards companies do will pot end to bad opinions on 3D pakges, and it will be fair I guess.

[Kid-Mesh]

Maybe I will take a different approach ,I have exposure to both Maya and LW which of course cant truly be compared to each other at all on alot of fronts. But sometimes I have a hard time really trying to understand what the big deal really is. If LW is missing (x) or doesnt do (x) the way another app does then so what. I mean really, most of use that use LW know exactly what is being said about the application and we know what we would want it to do (wishlist's). But the funny thing is that people continue to use it and new users will continue to come aboard regardless.

The comment about LW is good if your a small house or indie developer is so lame, no one wants to truly accept the fact that it is a resident application on a network in the big studios just like any other application.

There will always be more than one way to do something, there will always be a better way. And most of you that are "actually in the business" and not working out of your bedrooms/dorms realize that alot of times it takes more than one application to get things done.

But I think that NT's marketing, color shading, (insert rant), and rendering shouldnt have too much bearing on "your" final piece. I dont know about you but I have seen some horrible still renders and animations come out of maya and xsi and some killer ones. But for the most part it comes down to skill level and your ability to "pimp" an application.

You dont need to spend 9 grand on xsi (what a comment earlier) to actually do something worthwhile, hell take a look at "Rust Boy" now that's skill on the cheap. But if you really feel the need to spend that can of dough I have some lake front property in Iraq that I need to sell.

Edit: -- added below.

I dont know why I (automatically) decide to bear a cross for things I feel passionate about, but considering the last year, LW users have not been the happiest of the lot due to a lot of reasons. But I guess what get's me the most is that when a so called premiere application is upgraded then it's this heaven on earth attitude and joy for all. But when ever its a LW thing it's "oh, well its about time" or "that's nothing new" etc...basically critical comments at every turn. And honestly, I shouldnt even care about that, maybe its just human nature.

But I change my tune on the review to basically...It doenst even matter.


Cheers,

-KM

[faulknermano]

naaaa.....sweetheart......i'm not........things are just falling into place....
maybe u wanna go thru this - http://www.cgtalk.com/showthread.php?t=153698

i've been there. that's why i joked you on that. hehehe. it WAS a joke. i'm from the philippines myself and i know how many jobs i'm stealing. HAHA. just kidding really.

yup: thats my superCute son..... we call him Yash
thanksBuddy...
:thumbsup: i wish i had kid too. :)

[KolbyJukes]

I don't think there's much argument that LightWave's modeler is the finest on the market.LMAO! sure....

BTW, I am a former LW user.

[opus13]

that was one of the worst reviews i have ever read.

what i got from it, as a non LW user:
1. buttons are where i want them.

2. there is a new help system

3. mentions of bone manipiulations, but nothing actually said.

4. a new dynamics system that the reviewer hasnt used, but they are 'fun'.

5. brief mentions of particle tools without any useful comments.

6. a bunch of really subjective statements that dont mean anything.

7. some more sentiments about the bone tools without any deails or examples.

8. the modeler is still missing basic selection functionality.

9. lightwaves strengths are completely subjective and....

screw it. i give up. that is where i stopped reading. going from the troy article to this almost caused an aneurysm.

considering the quality of content that cgnetworks usually aspired to, i am really surprised that they put this on their site.

[Kenny Hootkins]

hasn't changes much from previous releases and the reviewer was just being nice.

[creative destructions]

I think if you've used lightwave before, you'll understand perfectly. This is basically an upgrade review, not a full blown intro to people who've never used lightwave before.

[LOR]

Lots of interesting remarks here, to be sure...


LOR

[NileshXYZ]

How about showing Student (education version) info too?

maybe say little bit about price and type of deal it is?

would add to the review :)

[ThirdEye]

How about showing Student (education version) info too?

maybe say little bit about price and type of deal it is?

would add to the review :)

400 bucks, prolly one of the most expensive student versions.

[Paul-Angelo]

400 bucks, prolly one of the most expensive student versions.
Lets see, at www.journeyed.com (http://www.journeyed.com/) a site that sells student versions of programs.

3ds max 6 w/character Studio & Reactor $599.98

Alias Maya 6 Student Version Unlimited $679.98 (no upgrades)

Softimage|XSI Advanced 4.0 $295.98 (educational license)
(no mention of upgrade to commercial license)

Lightwave 3d 7.5 $395.00 (non-commerical license)
(upgrade to commercial license for $495.00)

So Lightwave3d doesn't seem to have a Student Version for 8 out yet unless someone knows of a different site that sells student versions of 3d Apps.

[scroll-lock]

As a Maya user w/ 5+ years experience, using LW makes me want to rip my hair out.

It's a great program, but some of the ways it does things are soooooo strange...



one more thing. LW 8 is soooooooooooooooooooooooooooo buggy!!!! i can`t describe. I wonder how long have you played with it, but it`s awfull! I must use this package, because our studio use it, but i prefer using 7.5c instead of 8. All the new features have bugs to some extend!!!! I wonder everyday what betatesting was used on the package before they started selling it!!! I discover bugs every day, every hour let`s say!!! That`s so strange. Makes me wanna die!! Ripping out my hair won`t help...
:banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

[NanoGator]

Yup, and he's quite right, it's useless until the shading is affected, just as he said.

It's not useless. Just may not be what you want from it. I've used it from time to time for fake radiosity etc.

[Shardana]

But for the most part it comes down to skill level and your ability to "pimp" an application.

that's the point imo!!

[ThirdEye]

that's the point imo!!
yeah let's all use Bryce!

[retinajoy]

I use Lightwave nearly daily in my work and have found it very stable. A lot of great work has been and is being done with it. It seems to be the app of choice for most Television show effects and has won a few emmys. Effects studios such as Eden FX has Lightwave as their primary app and they worked on 200 shots (not claiming all LW) in Hell Boy. Zoic Studios is another good effects studio who also has Lightwave as there main app of choice, along with Maya and other tools used too. Key word here is "tools".

All apps have their good points or bad points. On these and other forums I hear such and such studio drop Maya for Lightwave or drop Lightwave for Maya etc etc. So what. Lightwave is a good tool. Maya is a good tool. Softimage XSI is a good tool. If it works well for your company/production/hobbie then it's a good tool. My tool of choice is Lightwave for 3D. So what. If I need another app (tool) more suitable for a task then I will use that.

[Kruvi]

Well from the first few pages it's a typical multisoftware thread, everyone apparently is too busy flaming the one they'r not using.
Whatever LW is, people are using it, studios are using it and just like with any other application, some amazing stuff have been and will be done with it.
I've never trusted reviews of any kind ever anyways, too subjective.

Just use what you are good at, you may be a professional photographer with 100k worth of equipment but the guy next door with the 50$ cam may deliver the next piece of art.

imho these threads never turn out fine and personally I didn't consider it a very good nor informative review.

just my 2 cents.

[Shardana]

yeah let's all use Bryce!

what I meant is that lightwave has the potential of any other high end package (surely not bryce)..maybe some software is able to give better results in less time for certain tasks and vice versa,but when is happened that I could not do something it was because of my skills/knowledge not because of lightwave..so I think it is a very good package for what I have to do with it (I'm not an animator and probably, if I were, I would not think in this way)

p.s. se non fosse per bryce probabilmente io come molti altri adesso non saprei neanche il significato di "render"! :D
magari non a tanto..ma a qualcosa è servito anche bryce!

[PolyMangler]

Sounds like the idea is lost on the reviewer. The feature people asked for was to just be able to change the color of the shadow. This feature was introduced in 7.x not 8.0.

The weaknesses section sounds more like the authors wishlist than the weakness list anyway.


Being able to change the shadow color is useful but it think the author was pionting to something even more usful which would be the control of the actual shading, Pixar has been flailing this type of tool around since toy story and it doesn incredeble things for an image.

And yeah it is kinda wishlist-ie

[CourtJester]

Sounds like a very valid complaint to me.
Then perhaps you can explain it? I've been doing lighting for years, and I don't know what he means.

In the past, you could fake colored shadows by cloning the light, making the clone cast no shadows, and then set it to the desired shadow color, and then *subtract* those RGB numbers from the color of the main light. Now the two lights add up to the same as the original, but the shadow receives some light through the object, thereby creating colored shadows.

The new feature merely automates this process.

So what does all that have to do with shading? I expect surfaces to react in exactly the way they do.

[NanoGator]

I think the nature of the complaint isn't that it doesn't do what its' designed to do, it doesn't do what people intend for it to do. It's sorta like saying bones don't work because they don't automagically make a character look like they have muscles etc.

It's semi-valid. For Newtek to fix it in order to make it do what people imagine, it'd have to take the areas not illuminated because of a shadow and render it as though there's a light dome around that specific part.

Hope that made sense.

[Lyr]

The complaint is that you cannot control the color of form shadows, the shadow that form casts onto itself giving it depth, basic stuff. It is stupid (but illuminating;) ) that Lightwave doesn't support this since it has toon shaders. Or are the toon shaders crippled in a similar manner? I forget, I abandoned Lightwave back at 5.6

[NanoGator]

Bummer. 6.5 would have renewed interest for ya.

[jeremybirn]

Shadow color should affect shading as well: Shadow color currently does not affect an object's shading, making this great feature nearly useless. We end up with one color of shadow and a different color of shading.
As with others here, at first I didn't understand this either, but once I figured it out his choice of words, I realize he's trying to make a reasonable point. By "not affect an object's shading" he means it doesn't tint the un-lit side of a shaded object; the side of the object that the light isn't illuminating remains black, making a colored shadow under the object look unnatural.

This is how "shadow color" controls work in all leading programs, and indeed this is one of the reasons that "shadow color" controls are considered a cheat, and need to be used very carefully, if at all. (The natural way to get color into your shadows is with colored fill lights - those will naturally light both the cast shadows and the unlit side of a shaded object.)

What he's asking for (which I'd describe as having a light emitting non-directional incandescence) could be a useful cheat also, but probably should be called something other than "shadow color."

-jeremy

[ChandlerL]

Paul_Angelo:

This may shed some light on the Student LW8.

I bought a student version of Lightwave 7.5 a ways back and Newtek sent me an upgrade to version 8 free of charge. I didn't even ask for it.

[Brettzies]

I like software debates because I feel I have an open mind. However, I hate the type of debates where people claim how great or bad something is and have only ever used one program. I started in production with Lightwave pretty much, used it for several years, went on to mainly use messiah for a few, and eventually wound up using Maya for the past three.

Having said that, Lightwave is a great package at an affordable price with a fairly easy learning curve and some very strong points. It's pretty easy to get some nice looking renders without having to know many tricks and of course the modeler has always been very hands on. The interface is simple and easy to learn. Everything about the basics of Lightwave I would say is "easy." Which is good.

Another big selling point for LW is that the render nodes are free to be on as many cpus as you like. Being a fairly good renderer, this is an attractive asset for smaller companies. Not sure about the Max based renderes, but Mental Ray and Renderman are not free. You get a certain nubmer with each copy(Mental Ray on Maya or XSI) and the rest you have to pay for.

However, LW's greatest strengths can also be its greatest weakness. Because it's cheap and easy, people start "marrying the software." But when you start getting into really complex stuff, the program is cumbersome to work with. Not to say you can't do something complex, but it isn't the most elegant way of working. One of my co-workers calls it "The Hammer," because you have to brute force it to get it to do what you want. This metaphor just reinforces the point that the software is only a tool.

Anyway, as much as I like(d) lightwave, I'm most disappointed that when they went from 5.6 to 6.0 which was a complete re-write, they didn't change the interface to be more robust. It's essentialy the same theory of work with a more open code. It may look a tiny bit different with each iteration, but it's the same interface and workflow. Although it's easy and unique, overall, it just feels clunky. Personally, I don't think they put much effort into workflow and user interaction at all, making the program retain much of it's clunkiness from the old Amiga days. If you use Lightwave long enough, you can navigate and interact with the program very quickly. It can even feel comfortable and familiar, however, that doesn't make it good.

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying Lightwave is a bad program. I think it's quite good. I just think the program's interface and workflow is holding it back. I am glad that got rid of that corny brushed metal look though. At least the program looks clean again.

[jjburton]

Actually, Lightwave has one of the best student programs. If you purchase a student version, 1) it never expires, and 2) if you purchase the next retail upagrade, you have a fully legal commercial version of it.

I bought Lightwave when I was starting out because it's the best I could afford. At school I use Maya as well. I've expereince with Max as well (being my first real 3d app to use). They all have their strengths and weaknesses and are all used at major studios. I currently spend my time pretty evenly split between LW and Maya. As for 8, I love the new modelling tools and the new dope sheet is a Godsend.

8 has been a pretty stable release for me. Just as stable as Maya on my machine. However, a while back I had a firegl video card that was wreaking major havoc with stability. Maybe a hardware or driver issue is the problem, Scroll_Lock?

Semper Fi, Chandler:thumbsup:

[Sil3]

Anyway, as much as I like(d) lightwave, I'm most disappointed that when they went from 5.6 to 6.0 which was a complete re-write...LW 6 was a great update (well 6.5 was, 6 was a mess) but not a complete re-write...NT said it was, i say it wasn´t.

Proof: Why only Undos that only work in translations and rotations? Why didn´t they implement the Undos in Layout in version 6 and only in version 8? Shouldn´t a complete re-write had taken care of that?

[CIM]

LW 6 was a great update (well 6.5 was, 6 was a mess) but not a complete re-write...NT said it was, i say it wasn´t.

Indeed, LW 6.0 was nothing more than a overhaul.

[lwbob]

As a Maya user w/ 5+ years experience, using LW makes me want to rip my hair out.

It's a great program, but some of the ways it does things are soooooo strange...

Then again, I'm sure Maya is the same way to a LW veteran.
Maya gives you a LOT of power over your scene. The only problem is you have to do too many things for the simple stuff. I would love to get into an app with that kind of power that ALMOST makes you create a script to select a polygon (I know it's an exaggeration, but not by much.) :)

[lwbob]

Being able to change the shadow color is useful but it think the author was pionting to something even more usful which would be the control of the actual shading, Pixar has been flailing this type of tool around since toy story and it doesn incredeble things for an image. e
Sounds good. That has nothing to do with the colored shadows though. :) The LW implimentation of colored shadows is exactly what users requested.

[CourtJester]

As with others here, at first I didn't understand this either, but once I figured it out his choice of words, I realize he's trying to make a reasonable point. By "not affect an object's shading" he means it doesn't tint the un-lit side of a shaded object; the side of the object that the light isn't illuminating remains black, making a colored shadow under the object look unnatural.
Ah, I gotcha. I forgot about that, but largely due to the fact that I've always got fill lights happening in a scene anyway, so I didn't notice that. He is right about that.

But then, I'd say that colored shadows is a convenience feature, a hack, NOT a proper lighting technique. I don't miss the "shader" side of the equation because I'd never rely on it to substitute for proper fill/GI lighting. It would be of little more use (and of no greater quality) than the ambient light. I'd much rather have color luminosity.

In fact, the colored shadow option makes the construction of lights that ONLY cast shadows very convenient, an indispensable tool for controlling shadows. (To see what I mean, take a spotlight, sets its color to black, set its shadow color to white, and set its intensity to -100%. Use this in a scene with other lights to see what I mean.)

[CIM]

Maya gives you a LOT of power over your scene. The only problem is you have to do too many things for the simple stuff. I would love to get into an app with that kind of power that ALMOST makes you create a script to select a polygon (I know it's an exaggeration, but not by much.) :)

Maya lets you create scripts for anything you could want with MEL.

[BillB]

Maya lets you create scripts for anything you could want with MEL.
And LW has LScript. His point is that maya makes simple things complex.
My conclusion is Maya is like NT 3.5 vs Lightwave as Windows XP. Sure, you get the job done, but it ain't pretty or easy...

[jeremybirn]

In fact, the colored shadow option makes the construction of lights that ONLY cast shadows very convenient, an indispensable tool for controlling shadows. Quite true - without colored shadows, you couldn't get three shadow passes in one render, either, and most people want that. Even though I agree that it's a cheat I'd warn people away from in general use, I wouldn't want that functionality to be missing from a renderer.

I would love to get into an app with that kind of power that ALMOST makes you create a script to select a polygon (I know it's an exaggeration, but not by much.) Be careful what you wish for - someday you might work in a studio whose software fits that description, and even if it's powerful enough to make maya feel like bryce, you'll still be cursing the things you have to work late adjusting manually. ( Of course this is a broad, theoretical prediction, not a specific statement about anything.)

-jeremy

[ThirdEye]

And LW has LScript. His point is that maya makes simple things complex.
My conclusion is Maya is like NT 3.5 vs Lightwave as Windows XP. Sure, you get the job done, but it ain't pretty or easy...I hope you aren't serious. Maya is more powerful, period. It's not easy to use because you have to know what you're doing, but this is a rule for all the apps. The more the tools the higher the knowledge one must have to manage them correctly, quite simple, init?

[faulknermano]

I hope you aren't serious. Maya is more powerful, period. It's not easy to use because you have to know what you're doing, but this is a rule for all the apps. The more the tools the higher the knowledge one must have to manage them correctly, quite simple, init?
sure, if you think having more tools, or being more complex is being more 'powerful.' i dont, for a minute, disagree that maya is technically deeper than lightwave especially when it comes to access to those 'depths.' but to say it is powerful is something more connected to how such complexity is appropriated (or not) at a specific situation, by a specific operator / artist. that's why some very simple progs who give a lot of functionality to users in a very user-friendly-way are "powerful."

and yes. i use maya, 90 percent of the time now for the past few years. and even if i like a lot of it, i agree with bill boyce. simple things become complex. but it's the nature of the beast. nothing is perfect. we just exploit it for its strengths and avoid its weaknesses, like we do with all software. simple, init? ;)

(doesnt mr boyce use maya as well? if so, we all have our opinions.)

[ThirdEye]

I agree with what you said faulkermano, and i agree with what's been said. But i don't agree with the NT 3.5 - XP comparison at all. Let's make a couple examples to be more clear: the material editor.
In Maya you can use the roll or the Hypershade: you have two possibilities depending on your skills and needs. The 1st one is quite a simple way to edit your materials, the second one offers you endless possibilities if you need more complex material.
In Lightwave all you can do is using the roll: perfect for simple materials, but what if you need a complex network?
Same thing for something like the Hypergraph.

[Ejecta]

And LW has LScript. His point is that maya makes simple things complex.
My conclusion is Maya is like NT 3.5 vs Lightwave as Windows XP. Sure, you get the job done, but it ain't pretty or easy... I personally dont get this. Ive heard this before. Ive been a professional for over 4 years and used LW most of it. Our studio is looking to add and make an main tool switch here in the near future so Im learning Maya so I can give them feedback on how I feel the tool might fit in.

I dont find Maya hard or overly complex in any way. Maybe its just people either like the interface or not which is what I really feel it is. I dont find that things are that much faster in LW and what I have discoverd is that the things that make LW faster are the "canned" tools which can bite you in ars when it comes to finding ways of getting the effect your loooking for. In Maya it is so much easier to create work arounds. Now dont get me wrong I dont like all of Maya *caugh skinning* but I have found some MEL scripts that make it just as fast as it is in LW but sadly not as fast as messiah. IMHO Maya isnt just for studios with a bunch of TDs. We just did some spec work for a major game company and I created an effect in Maya with just few months training that would have taken me at least a couple of days extra in LW that I have been using for 4 years.

Maya is complex. Hard? No. Sorry it's just not true in my experience.

Lastly I find it odd that Bill uses messiah and not LW for animation since LW is the XP. :shrug:

[faulknermano]

I dont find Maya hard or overly complex in any way.

..

Maya is complex. Hard? No. Sorry it's just not true in my experience.


perhaps further down the road you'll change your mind. :) but well for now, good for you. :)

[Ejecta]

perhaps further down the road you'll change your mind. :) but well for now, good for you. :) Maybe. Maybe not. Time will tell I guess. So if Im to understand you right the longer you use Maya the harder it gets? Interesting.

[NanoGator]

So if Im to understand you right the longer you use Maya the harder it gets? Interesting.

It's possible. I mean, when you start out with an App, you do simple little things. When you grow and get more involved with what you're doing, the demands on the App become greater. If you reach an area of the software that requires a few too many steps, it can get harder the more you get to know it.

Not sure if that makes any sense, but a friend of mine recently told me what creating surfaces was like in Maya. I'm not all that surprised at the 'harder it gets the longer you use it' statement. I think LW technically falls under that category too, though. I think I'm just being a little bitter, though. I've found LScript to be annoying. Heh.

[Ejecta]

It's possible. I mean, when you start out with an App, you do simple little things. When you grow and get more involved with what you're doing, the demands on the App become greater. If you reach an area of the software that requires a few too many steps, it can get harder the more you get to know it.

Not sure if that makes any sense, but a friend of mine recently told me what creating surfaces was like in Maya. I'm not all that surprised at the 'harder it gets the longer you use it' statement. I think LW technically falls under that category too, though. I think I'm just being a little bitter, though. I've found LScript to be annoying. Heh. I hear you on the L Script thing. :scream:

Yeah I understand it might be true about things getting complex but that doesnt necessarliy mean hard or maybe Im wrong. Like I said time will tell. However the effect I did for game company wasnt in any shape or form a simple effect. My boss was doing a simular effect as we were showing them variations and he was doing it in LW. He was very impressed with my results and made the comment it was taking him much longer to get his effect in LW.

[faulknermano]

So if Im to understand you right the longer you use Maya the harder it gets? Interesting.
yes indeed, isnt it?

[Ejecta]

yes indeed, isnt it? Well thanks for sharing your opinion.

[BillB]

I hope you aren't serious. Maya is more powerful, period. It's not easy to use because you have to know what you're doing, but this is a rule for all the apps. The more the tools the higher the knowledge one must have to manage them correctly, quite simple, init?
Oh, I don't dispute Maya is powerful, and I've spent the last 3 months using it all day and directing 12 people using it, so I don't speak from ignorance. My metaphor was with respect to the interface. It's not easy to learn to use because of the interface. Why do many people prefer LW as a modeller? It's not because of the tools so much as their implementation. And the pipeline seems far more rigid, their are some really elegant features in LW like Endomorphs that are a pain in Maya - edit your base mesh in LW and all the morph targets change to match. In Maya, you have to manually adjust all your blendshapes. Ugh.

And don't get me started on Fur and Paint Effects, they've made this past week a nightmare :(

[BillB]

I hasten to add, the animation tools in Maya are generally way better than those in LW. I'm not being a snob, I'll use what works and what I like using.

I remember switching to LW from Imagine, and it was easy, did my first paying job the same day. Going to Maya feels like jumping in the deep end of the pool without my water wings. Glug.

:)

[DotPainter]

I like lightwave, as well as 3d in general, but coming from a programming background, I think 3d is definitely way behind in terms of user friendliness. The in the old-days, when maya cost $30,000 and needed a $10,000 SGI box to run well, it was ok to need a PHD in physics to know how to used its advanced features. However, it is now 10 years later and technology hardware wise has leaped ahead light years, while the software is really lagging behind in becoming more fully featured, while at the same time becoming more user friendly.

To me the best software application, no matter what the discipline it is used for, mapping, accounting, engineering, etc, should make complex computations tasks easy to perform on the back end and provide fairly simple access on the front end. However, with 3d, not only does every application have its own paradigm that it builds itself around, but it also has its own implied "laws of physics" that it uses to implement real world phenomena, none of which may jibe with "real" physics. So not only do I have to learn physics to understand why I should apply certain values to various properties, but I must also learn what "physics model" the application is using, in order to adjust those parameters accordingly.

All of which is a pain. If I want a pretty sky and clouds, I should not have to know all the physics properties of clouds and how to set thousands of dials and parameters to make one. On the other hand, that doesn't mean that those options should not be available to those who dare either........

[lwbob]

I hope you aren't serious. Maya is more powerful, period. It's not easy to use because you have to know what you're doing, but this is a rule for all the apps. The more the tools the higher the knowledge one must have to manage them correctly, quite simple, init?

Powerful doesn't mean that you should have to work harder to do simple stuff. For the Maya/LW debate I'll give you one example, TAB, polygons are converted to sds. There is no digging through menus and waiting all week for the conversion. Bones work with them. Modeling tools don't barf on them. I don't have to use some proxy mode because they are unusable. Now there are a great many things I would love to have as tools but Maya just half asses their implimentation (not that LW doesn't) and enough people stumble over them to make it a standard.


I want this guy to write a review for LW -->Asa (http://www.lw-fin.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=96)

[creative destructions]

once there was a coder at Newtek but he left and marketing team took his job.
This message has at least 10 characters.

[leuey]

After many years w/ both programs I can only 'half' agree with you. Maya is as complex as you want it to be. The GUI in Maya is much more interactive, intuitive and configurable than LW. Even more important, the online documentation in Maya (and the written docs) are VASTLY superior than Lightwave's. In Maya it's more a matter of knowing that something is possible - then pursuing the docs to find the best way to do it. I don't think anybody is going to argue that Modeler isn't more hands on than the modeling tools in Maya. And LW's surface editor is easier at first glance - but far far less flexible and powerfull.

- All in all though - Maya's GUI is (mostly) consistant, Lightwave's is not (at all)

- Maya's docs are great, Lightwave's range from good to horrible

- Maya learning tools are also much more comprehensive than LW's (books, DVD's, etc)
So I definately wouldn't argue that LW is easier for the new user, although it's definately 'faster' for the easy stuff (logos, shape animation, quick and nice renders, etc)

-Greg









Oh, I don't dispute Maya is powerful, and I've spent the last 3 months using it all day and directing 12 people using it, so I don't speak from ignorance. My metaphor was with respect to the interface. It's not easy to learn to use because of the interface. Why do many people prefer LW as a modeller? It's not because of the tools so much as their implementation. And the pipeline seems far more rigid, their are some really elegant features in LW like Endomorphs that are a pain in Maya - edit your base mesh in LW and all the morph targets change to match. In Maya, you have to manually adjust all your blendshapes. Ugh.

And don't get me started on Fur and Paint Effects, they've made this past week a nightmare :(

[RobertoOrtiz]

Guys please keep stay on topic.
Do not make this thread into a pissing match between applications.

-R

[Brettzies]

I would say this is pretty much on topic. Lightwave has just come out with version 8. People are saying what they like and don't like about the program and relating thier experience when transferring to other programs. I would think this type of discussion would be very useful for people considering using LW or upgrading, or even switching to something else.

I only think these type of discussions turn into pissing matches when someone has only used one app, become very comfortable with it, and boasts how it can do what another app does, even if the other app does it better, faster, and more intuitively. These type of people tend to get their feelings hurt when someone complains about "their" app's workflow, learning curve, or whatever, even when it's a legitimate complaint. People tend to "marry" their software for some reason and becoming neo-patriotic-nazis about it, and are always on the look out for "oo, look what 3d-app-X just did, or oo look what it can do too." It's just software. I say use what you like, and learn what you have to, and move on to something else when you need to.

I've had people tell me how hard something is in a certain app, when they haven't even used the app yet. Everything is hard if you don't know how to do it? Anyway, these discussions can degrade into 'non-constructive' pissing matches, but I'd rather let people be free to say what they want and hope they can use their own judgement in what is appropriate to post, as well as when to filter someone's comments as simply hot air.

[lwbob]

Guys please keep stay on topic.
Do not make this thread into a pissing match between applications.

-R
I haven't seen any pissing. There is a very civil debate between the apps so far.

[retinajoy]

- Maya learning tools are also much more comprehensive than LW's (books, DVD's, etc)So I definately wouldn't argue that LW is easier for the new user, although it's definately 'faster' for the easy stuff (logos, shape animation, quick and nice renders, etc)
-Greg
The Lightwave 8 documentation is a big improvement to previous versions. It comes with a comprehensive large hardcopy manual (well thought out this time) and a tutorial book, plus from within Lightwave you can launch an HTML reference which also includes some tutorials. Lightwave comes with 2 CDs full of example scenes and another CD with third party plugins to try out and some video tutorials. Then there are training DVDs from various sources and CD based training courses from such people as Dan Ablan and Larry Shultz. Plus there are lots of fresh new Lightwave 8 books that have been released covering specialist areas such as lighting or texturing to more general and more to come. On top of this, Lightwave has a very friendly and helpful online community and not to mention many tutorials on the net.

So Lightwave is very much an easy 3D application for the new user to learn as many have found.

LW is not just faster for the "easier" stuff. A quote from Ron Thorton in using LW in the new Captain Scartlet TV series makes my point.

"With the Maya/RenderMan pipeline we were getting between .5 and 1.5 shots per day. With LightWave we are averaging 16-20 shots per day without losing any quality. That's the thing with TV... it's an endurance test."

http://www.newtek-europe.com/uk/community/lightwave/thornton/3.html

and "simple" Lightwave was used to complete this amazing animated short abour 25min length in 6 months by one person.

http://www.kazeghostwarrior.com/

not to mention the effects on those emmy award winning shows last year.

I don't think Lightwave is better than Maya or vice versa as I they both have there plus and minus points, but I felt like getting some true facts out about the documentation and learning materials available.

Now which pencil show I draw this imaginery head portrait of mine. Should I use an 8B or 4B pencil? Which one is better? Maybe the mixture of the two could give the result I am looking for? Or how about charcoal? Maybe coloured crayons.......

[lwbob]

It comes with a comprehensive large hardcopy manual
No it doesn't, if you buy a brand new copy it might. All the people that have been stickin' with it and upgrading got squat for the manual.

[retinajoy]

No it doesn't, if you buy a brand new copy it might. All the people that have been stickin' with it and upgrading got squat for the manual. It was explained to us that the pre-release offer would only include the PDF manual rather than the hardcopy version. The price we paid is less than the normal upgrade price (so we can purchase them without feeling cheated if we want) and we got DFX+ with 2 modules (worth around $1500) for free. I thought this was a good deal getting £2000 worth of software for about £400. New users get the printed manuals with tutorial book, but we got an extra $1500 dollars instead.

:)

[leuey]

Yes, I should have mentioned that I hadn't upgraded to LW8 yet. It's nice to know they improved the docs. I also wasn't trying to imply that LW is only good for 'simple' things - but that I think it's generally better than Maya for the simpler, quick turnaround projects. I can't speak for Ron Thorton, but I always use Maya for the more complex projects and I think most people would agree with me there.

LW is definately getting better though. For years it didn't even have a 'spreadsheet editor' and I remember clicking shadows off or something like that for about 500 boulders for a video game opener I was working on (some random thing that couldn't be edited w/ a text editor). Also for years Layout and Modeler had different default keyboard shortcuts for move/rotate/scale. Of course you could re-map keys but it kind of points out the somewhat random way LW is cobbled together. good times....good times...

best,

Greg


[QUOTE=retinajoy]The Lightwave 8 documentation is a big improvement to previous versions. It comes with a comprehensive large hardcopy manual (well thought out this time) and a tutorial book, etc. etc...QUOTE]

[lwbob]

It was explained to us that the pre-release offer would only include the PDF manual rather than the hardcopy version.
It was explained after the fact. Still this shoots a hole in the hardcopy manual comes with LW theory. SOME copies of LW come with a manual.

[retinajoy]

All copies of LW from the official release come with hardcopy manuals.

Not after the fact. It was very clear to me when I ordered LW8 last October that the pre-release upgrade offer only included the PDF manual and the $1785 worth of free software (DFX+ with all hardcopy manuals) bundled in.

Here is part of the original press release dated 3rd June 2003
"Pricing and Availability
LightWave 3D [7.5] is available at authorized NewTek resellers worldwide for a suggested retail price of $1595US. To locate your nearest authorized reseller or distributor, see our reseller locater at http://www.newtek.com (http://www.newtek.com/). Registered owners of LightWave 3D [7.5] or earlier are eligible to purchase an upgrade to LightWave [8] for $495US. Through June 30th, 2003 (edit:got extended up to just before the official release), both full seats and upgrades will include DFX+, a $995 value, Module 1 - Visual Effects, a $495 value, and Module 4 - 3D Tools, a $295 value. Purchasers who would prefer to receive upgrades in package form with printed manual and CD rather than in electronic form will be able to purchase a Convenience Upgrade option for $99, directly from NewTek... "
http://www.newtek.com/news/releases/06-03-03a.html

I think the above is very clear. My main point was that new users (post official release) get all the manuals and there are plenty of learning resources available for them. Sorry for straying off topic a bit, but I just wanted to clarify some things with facts. I do think Lightwave is a good app that is worth looking into. As a lot of people would say: "try the demos of the 3D software that interests you and see what suits you best for your needs".

What's intuitive to some is not to others, but it is the artist behind the tool which is most important. I am happy to work with any tool, but LW works for me at the moment.

[lwbob]

Not after the fact. It was very clear to me when I ordered LW8 last October that the pre-release upgrade offer only included the PDF manual and the $1785 worth of free software (DFX+ with all hardcopy manuals) bundled in.

That is fantastic news-- FOR YOU! I'm really happy that it was mentioned to YOU. Now we all know that anything that happens for you applies to the rest of the world. Not everyone upgraded with the same option you did though.

[NanoGator]

That is fantastic news-- FOR YOU! I'm really happy that it was mentioned to YOU. Now we all know that anything that happens for you applies to the rest of the world. Not everyone upgraded with the same option you did though.


Hey lwbob, take it easy, will ya? No need to be gritting teeth. :)

As for what he said, he's right, Newtek was pretty up-front about the upgrade being PDF only. I'm not sure how far back in time that went, but I remember 'electronic upgrade' being thrown around as early as last year's siggraph. It was pretty common knowledge that LW8 would not come with a hardcopy manual without a $100 fee.

[retinajoy]

Now we all know that anything that happens for you applies to the rest of the world. Not everyone upgraded with the same option you did though.
I quoted the Newtek press release above from June last year which I presume would apply to everybody who ordered before the official release. Was not trying to have a go at you lwbob or prove that I am Mr Right. Just stating the facts based on info that Newtek made public etc and what was delivered to me and other LW people. Was just trying to be politely informative. That's all. Anyway, sorry folks for going way off topic on this one.

[igorstshirts]

The toggle to instant full screen view of any viewport is worth the upgrade alone on 8. Yep.

[Sil3]

What´s wrong with the "old" keep mouse cursor on top of the viewport and press 0 (zero) on the numpad??

[Paul-Angelo]

What´s wrong with the "old" keep mouse cursor on top of the viewport and press 0 (zero) on the numpad??
Nothing, but it's a pain when using a laptop which is one of the main reasons it was introduced in LW8.

[faulknermano]

Nothing, but it's a pain when using a laptop which is one of the main reasons it was introduced in LW8.

to be frank, lightwave should have given users more hotkeys. why not give the capability of mapping that numpads into other keys? numpads are exclusively viewport hotkeys. why remain with the limitation for a version 8 release?

i use a 3rd party app (not plug) to remap numpad keys into place more accessible with my left hand. it's a scripting thing so there's more overhead for me. but dont you think thats a bit much just to get hotkeys?

by the way, you can remap the numpad0 into other keys, so that button seems to be redundant.

[CGTalk Moderation]

This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.