PDA

View Full Version : what is ur approach, luxology?


vuedesprit
09-20-2004, 06:18 PM
i just want to know from the luxology team, if the approach of the full nexus package will b like lightwave, in preventing two formats (LWO & LWS) one for models and one for scens, if yes it'll b outdated approach for me, and nonsense for a unified appliucation.
In fact i'm looking forward for the instancing function, a very needed function that it lacked in LW, as a modeling benefit, i'm sure that we'll have some sort of instancing in NEXUS , but hope it'll be not like LW layout duplicating objects, so we end with layers in object, and objects in scenes object, it'll very complkicated and for me it's a workarround.
so plz give me a light on this section plz.

Kvaalen
09-20-2004, 06:44 PM
If I understood correctly, modo will be part of nexus. Intergrated into it.
Also, nexus has instancing (showen by Brad Peebler at the Apple Expo).

Just BTW, LW does have instancing through a plugin and you don't duplicate layers for it but nulls. :)
I agree it is a lacking feature.

c-g
09-20-2004, 07:15 PM
i just want to know from the luxology team, if the approach of the full nexus package will b like lightwave, in preventing two formats (LWO & LWS) one for models and one for scens, if yes it'll b outdated approach for me, and nonsense for a unified appliucation.
outdated approach for me, and nonsense for a unified appliucation?

Have you used Lightwave? I bet almost everyone that has ever used Lightwave had their butt saved at one point because they could edit the scene file in notepad or that they don't have a bloated file because some huge set of models is choking the network when they are loading a scene. I'm sure Luxology has thought this one over and is a little more open minded about a solution than you give them credit for.

vuedesprit
09-20-2004, 08:15 PM
at c-g, man i'm a lightwave user since 7 years, and i have purchased most of it's advanced plugins, including HD-instance, but it's not the solution.

at kvaalan, man actually i'm not talking about a instancing like HD-instance, Hd-instancing is kind of a virtual instancing, like crowd animation or rendering, by apply it to nulls.
this is not the needed instancing, what i'm talking about, is like all 3d app instancing, modeling instancing, like max or maya or c4d, when u duplicate a object, u can specifi that it's instance or just a copy, if it's a instance u can modify the base so all other will b modified as well, example if u r modeling a residential architectural project of typical floors.

by far this kind of instancing exist in layout LW, u import ur typical floor in layout, clone it severla times, now u go to modeler, chnage the base object, so all the cloned in layout will b changed, but this is a workaround, and result in a clutered objects organization, so we have layers in modeler, and in layout each layer is a separate object, this approach will srew up the workflow for me, i prefer to or have elements object, or have layers, not the two at the same time, hope that i clarified it.

Dion Burgoyne
09-20-2004, 09:34 PM
The Apple Expo keynote shows a very small sample of what we are working on in this regard...

http://stream.apple.akadns.net/

c-g
09-20-2004, 10:13 PM
at c-g, man i'm a lightwave user since 7 years, and i have purchased most of it's advanced plugins, including HD-instance, but it's not the solution.
I'm not sure what you owning plugins have to do with the scene and object being seperate files. Why would you want it to be into one bloated file?

Pazur
09-21-2004, 07:23 AM
for me, separate object and scene files is very good solution and I personally hope Lux will not force us to use single scene file. I have been editing scene file in text editor numerous times. In fact, I would like even more separate files. For example I would like a few scenes to share the same light rig or character rig and keep those saved as separate scene files that could be linked to the main one. Not to mention that saving the scene in that case usually takes seconds and You can really easily replace one mesh with another. You can also update mesh independently from scene.

Nemoid
09-21-2004, 08:31 AM
Exactly. the separation between these 2 kinda files in Lw allows u more flexibility, and actually builds Layout scene files smaller than other apps.
Now, I dunno exactly if it's a modern approach because all other apps seem to do the opposite, but i know it works.

Lack of istances in modeler is a different thing, and i hope to see this kinda istances in Modo. they are so useful especially for architectural modelling, and much more, giving u the possibility to change things in your model for a client on the fly.

PixelInfected
09-21-2004, 09:52 PM
No single obj, like lw user i adore that, try to work on big project and you find it a good thing, try to work on bg project with maya (we do too) you must start to do a lot of referencing between scene, obj and more.

project files, obj files, no single mammouth file of some gb for a complex scenes.

Yiorgz
09-21-2004, 10:36 PM
3 words !!

XML

These programs should all be using XML for their scene and object formats.

Let the software load it into a custom memory structure once the file is read in from disk, but when they go to write back to disk, XML again !!

This would allow maximum interoperability with just about everything on (e-)earth and means 3rd party developers can go skitso with their ideas.

Tools that process the files would appear very quickly, and soon, there would be so much stuff that talks Modo, it would be in a very good position (marketing-wise).

XML !!
:p

ps. Pazur ...
For example I would like a few scenes to share the same light rig or character rig and keep those saved as separate scene files that could be linked to the main one

If they used XML, this feature could be done quite easily.

Pazur
09-21-2004, 11:02 PM
configs are XML already. i have a good feeling the same will apply for future scene file format ;)

SOPLAND
09-21-2004, 11:35 PM
A couple points.

XML is not a good idea. For one there is nothing special about XML that makes it better suited for scene decriptions than even a plain old text file. Second, even if you had an XML scene desription all the programs work so differently it wouldn't be possible to have complete or anywhere near complete compatibiliy from one package to another. Thirdly you actually have to get all the developers of various software packages to support this scene description. Pixar has come the closest to achieving this but it hasn't come anywhere close to what they originally envisioned I'm sure. The way these programs are set up, the best you could hope for as far a say character animation is concerned is to get simple rigs, skins, and shader assignemtns back and forth which is what FBX does.

CGTalk Moderation
01-19-2006, 07:00 AM
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.