PDA

View Full Version : Does Modo have Construction History?


TrexGreg
09-22-2004, 08:13 PM
I was wondering....
Does Modo have an editable Construction History like Maya and Max have? Lightwave never had such a feature and since Modo have many similarities to the LW's toolset, i could only imagine that there is no Construction History in Modo. Can anyone confirm that we can go back and edit the created model, say a tube's spans, AFTER we drop the creation tool?

Thanks,

kursad_pileksuz
09-22-2004, 08:26 PM
in my 4 years of using maya professionally , i can tell you that construction history in m aya was not that constructive for modelling purposes, just gave me more headache. but i guess it is necessary for animation etc. and it would slow down modelling alot.and too bad you cannot really turn off hostory in maya, then some tools would not work
back to modo, modo does not have that kind of history. but it has history of what is going on, so basically you select suff history create macros, scripts or assign shortcuts, i guess if you select whole thing as macro it would create the whole cene from scratch, have not tried that but in theory should work

no you cannot edit any kind of parametric information after it is implemented. but persoanlly i do not find that limiting in my modelling needs. in maya i never needed to change any kind of cube or sphere spans after i created for example

TrexGreg
09-22-2004, 08:32 PM
Well....
I'm using Lightwave, so i never had it nor need it or use it....:)
But, i just wanted to know, since it seems that Modo have all the bells and whistles all the other apps have... and then some...
Thanks,

antnik
09-22-2004, 08:54 PM
Yes you are right. I think modo doesnt need this kind of history. I use Maya and sometimes lw and i didn't found history of maya very usefull. Maybe later there will be a kind of history for animation (NEXUS) :). By the way, at the end of the month i will buy modo, and this will be my only modelling program. We hope for NEXUS very soon. :) It is time for a little evolution to 3d industry.

francescaluce
09-22-2004, 09:01 PM
nah.. c'mon.. what means this... lw is the only package with that limitaion and now MODo.. 'coz it's a limitation.. if you're so lucky to catch flies on the fly.. good for you.. in that sense simply disable the CH.. you're not forced to get it active.. the problem here is that MODo is claimed to be a revolutionary next generation 3D modeling system... what's revolutionary if the same thing you were doing in maya or lightwave you'll do also in MODo ??



ciao
francesca

durexlw
09-22-2004, 10:57 PM
We hope for NEXUS very soon. :) It is time for a little evolution to 3d industry.Nexus already exists or Modo wouldn't exist. Nexus is no animation software, however it's used to build an animation software.

what's revolutionary if the same thing you were doing in maya or lightwave you'll do also in MODo ??
The way modo is build is revolutionary at itself. This can't be seen, however, it's users will feel it. Updates, maintanance and additions can be done way quicker then any other application.
The modular build of any interface item is never seen before.

Nexus and therefor Modo is build for the long run and a long life.

Then again, I could only advice you not to believe me and see for yourself.

Take care,
Andy

annaleah
09-23-2004, 02:24 AM
History is good.

kursad_pileksuz
09-23-2004, 02:30 AM
well, what about, no it is not good? :)
it is all relative

Nemoid
09-23-2004, 09:13 AM
I am currently a Lw user and i'm used working without history, so I think i will not feel so bad in Modo right now, but i agree with who says history is good in certain cases.

The point is having the possibility to use it, even once in your life could be of help.

BTW in Maya or XSI manuals and books and other they say that it's better to work without history, or better, freeze transformations from time to time to let the app work fine and don't crawl at a certain point.

This is particularly valid for organic modelling. but what about other kinda modelling? increasing spans, or changing a curve to be lofted could be very very useful in certain cases.
My personal interest however goes towards two main things : istances in MODO, and history in Nexus for animation, where it's actually more useful.

Then, if u Lux guys put history in Modo too i can't be more happy!

I could be wrong, but I think this will happen automatically, because Modo will be put on the whole Nexus environment wich can't fail to provide things like history, as a general feature in its structure.

For this reason I think Modo power will be extended furthermore when put in Nexus. :)

lougandidas
09-23-2004, 09:39 AM
History is good.
I can't count how many times I've deleted history...

annaleah
09-23-2004, 01:49 PM
History is useful to those of whom that know how to use it to their advantage.

lougandidas
09-23-2004, 03:00 PM
History is useful to those of whom that know how to use it to their advantage.
I know how to use it. I think it's a pain. I've also used Lightwave modeler, without history, and I didn't miss having history at all.

DimitrisLiatsos
09-23-2004, 03:46 PM
Well i don't know but as long as modeling is concerned i don't care about history...as long as it has many UNDOS ...So MODO is more than fine. But i think from a video in Luxology ..that it has something like construction History and i also think that the guy moved commands up and down commands ...or am i wrong???



www,WANT MY MODO,arrgggh
:bounce: :bounce: :bounce:


Hi TrexGreg,Antnik

leuey
09-23-2004, 03:58 PM
History is more for animation in my opinion. Although I really like it for tweaking lofts, lathes, extrudes on curves - things like that. Not really all that usefull for the point pushing, loop slicing kind of workflow.

-Greg

MasonDoran
09-23-2004, 04:47 PM
history really comes in handy in modelling workflow when you just want to create an object....and change its attributes at a later date like the number of edgeloops and what not.....or say you want to slide edge loops after several were created...

or say you make several extrudes on top of extrudes....you can go back to the original extrude and tweak that...which will of course change the child extrudes.


wether you know how to use History or not...its a valuable tool just like anything else that once understood its hard to work without. Having history saves a lot of guess work and provides a very forgiving work flow.

My suspicion is due to the nature of the architecture needed for history, it wont make it into modo.

Paul-Angelo
09-23-2004, 05:24 PM
For this reason I think Modo power will be extended furthermore when put in Nexus. :)I just want to say if you read this interview with Brad http://www.cgnetworks.com/story_custom.php?story_id=2409
then you will have a better understanding of what Nexus is. It's not a product like some people think. Modo was created from Nexus. :)

mosquito710
09-23-2004, 05:28 PM
modo already has command history I think, and I believe (someone correct me if I'm wrong) that you can change the atributes of a command (like the amount of an extrude or a bevel) after you have done other things, like going back in time.

francescaluce
09-23-2004, 07:08 PM
Nexus and therefor Modo is build for the long run and a long life. I'm sure but I'm a bit doubtful about the fact that MODo is without history... and also without obj paradigm and with uv subd distorsion.. it is lightwave.. so, why a long run application should start with those limitations already ??.. cannot think that lux choose to omits these features that are actually the red devil in lightwave.. if doing a CH ala xsi is so easy do you think that lux would have started without implement that one ??.. n other words.... that this one was an alternative.. it is not for you, moders and it is not for lux... they cannot do it.. an apz without CH or its clear possibilty generally lacks modularity in the code.. without obj paradigm.. someone will tell me how do you think to implement a layer or a bunch of polys into an animation pipelines.. by doing another module?.. remember something.. the history is not only good for modelling.. but also in order to remember the own errors.. :p

oh, anyway.. long life to MODo !!


ciao
francesca

kursad_pileksuz
09-23-2004, 07:15 PM
History is useful to those of whom that know how to use it to their advantage.
well maybe you can give us some examples so we understand what you are saying about history. because your statement is like this , not having history is not good if you do not know how to live without it. do not get me wrong please, but vague comments creates nothing but confusion



i really would like to hear people who are wanting history , and i would like hear conditions of use of history and benefitial ti can be, i did alot of modelling in maya, it was nothing but pain, it created so many nodes, i needed to spend so much time on cleaning them everytime just an example why that kind of modelling is not good for simple fast modelling

AmbiDextrose
09-23-2004, 07:22 PM
Suppose you use a curve to define an object to boolean to cut a hole in an object in the middle of your modelling process. Now, suppose that at some point, you have to change the shape of the hole. If you have history, you just change the shape of the generating curve and this change is propagated down (or up) the object's history tree. It really pays to have history if your workflow is more into solid modeling. It doesn't make sense to have history for simple objects but for very complex ones, history can be a real life-saver.

kursad_pileksuz
09-23-2004, 07:35 PM
i understand that, and in the past i used history with nurbs models. but when it comes to polygonal modelling and subd modelling, it never helps. and %99 of the modelllign i personally do not need, and for 1 percent i wont take history because it is not managable after couple of steps due to complexity of history can be created, and in maya, it slows down alot. idea of having parametric modelling sounds good but it never holds good after couple of steps. and i would not limit myself with history`s limits,
now if someone has some tricks to manage 20 steps of history without any flow, i would like to hear that persoanlly, it can help

AmbiDextrose
09-23-2004, 07:45 PM
Before subdiv, save versions and clear history. If you can put notes in the model file, use it to document changes.

francescaluce
09-23-2004, 07:58 PM
kursad_pileksuzm, you're fighting against windmill.. maya CH is not good.. and you're now with MODo.. try xsi.. to get literally a vision of a next generation CH and modelling system.. the history is not dead.. you can swap up and down operators.. mute them.. selective disabling and freezing, go in any moment in immediate mode for the operations you choose.. different stacks for different CH history on the pipelines for modelling shaping and animation. .. someone spoke about long life in the sense to look at the perspective that involves the softwares.. sure.. I beat you that MODo will never have a CH history.. and that xsi for example has just to implement some more tools.. see the difference.



ciao
francesca

TrexGreg
09-23-2004, 08:02 PM
Well...
When you model something having Construction History (CH) on your toolset can be either a time-saver or a time-killer. The same thing applies when you model without CH. So in the end, it's how you utilize your toolset to best fit your modeling and at a later stage, your animation skills.
Sure, having all the tools every 3d app have, centralized in one app might be a good thing, but that's impossible for any company to achive, since all master brains don't work under the same hood (company)...:scream:

MHO. is that Lightwave will die and be re-born...
Long live Modo and it's parents!:bounce:

Best regards,

DimitrisLiatsos
09-23-2004, 08:32 PM
Maybe francescaluce is right 'cause these days i also use XSI ( I am mainly Maya user) and i see some stronger flexibility and i understand what she is trying to point out here....but...
there is also a possibilty (which i can't entirely prove 'cuase i don't have MODO ..YET:twisted: ) that MODO is having this ..or a form of this ...

Can someone who is using it (MODO) say something...arrggghhh ..where is my MODO...argghh!

Per-Anders
09-23-2004, 09:07 PM
How odd that people are arguing against features already. it's software people, not religion. it's new i'm sure it has some omisions, i'm sure that will be addressed in due course.

Here is a good modeler use of construction history - subd's. in xsi for instance you can simply apply a subd modifier to an object, modify points, add another subd, edit that subd's points, then go back and start editing both lower density meshes points adding in or removing as required while having the transforms passed down through the stack to the end geometry. in effect a form of heirarchical subd system, rather like the way z-brush handles it.

Additionally with a good construction history you can blend what's happened, mix between before and after points, this can help no end when creating morph targets which I believe is advertised as one of modo's strong points.

Then there's just general control, it's so frequent to have done something down the line that you then regret and wish you could not have done, untriangulating a mesh or whatever, or maybe just general procedural modeling.

Having a construction history doesn't take away anything, it doesn't hurt. Doesn't make anything else more difficult to use. In fact it should be totally transparent. It just adds some new possibilities and a more flexible workflow for those that need or want it. So i can't quite understand the antagonism towards such a thing here.

mav3rick
09-23-2004, 11:00 PM
from ppl that come from 3dsmax side and souch apps i understand lack of history in some moments but on other hand carry up history with model all da time is a BIG performance hit in any of this history based apps....
personally i come from lw side and my company utilize it to finish all commercials.... however i have been worked on some commercial stuff using 3dsmax and i have to tell i was pretty KNOCKED down of history on my back since i had to carry it on....
so personally in total of 100% of work in less than 5% i had need for history ...
it would be nice to have some basic history for example to give ability to change main object and instances change on fly (usually help to arhitects) or souch...

but generally modo is young app and we can expect LOT more from it

ah yes i never had any problems with deadlines or with flexibility to do commercial eaven if i never had any history.

Cyberdigitus
09-23-2004, 11:07 PM
well, for the ultimate in procedural modeling, check out Houdini.

If it would be implemented well, it could be put to good use, but generally when modeling, you don't need that. (multiple levels of subd is another matter, it can be implemented on it's own.

i guess modo is more targeted at fluid artistic modeling, ie if you have a ringloop too much, just remove it, one to little add it. why go back to do this if it's so easy to just model as you see your object emerge? if you work with clay you can't go back either, but you cann add or remove matter.

a 'history' node network in such a modeling environment could be dificult to implement and the effects a change back would have on the result now would not always be able to determined. ie it can be a mess, unless the whole application paradigm is based on it. think Houdini, not Maya. if not, i guess the good things about it can be implemented on their own for specific tasks.

SheepFactory
09-23-2004, 11:14 PM
wow knocking down history cause "it slows down modelling" , thats like saying raytracing is messing up my bevel performance.

There is a button called "freeze history" in all highend apps that'll get rid of the unwanted baggage and speed up your performance , not to mention an option to model without history on. Even better they also have something called "freeze modelling history" , that cleans up the modeling operations and leaves the important animated related history stack intact.


Some people need to take the horse glasses off.

kursad_pileksuz
09-23-2004, 11:54 PM
well but that does not sound like history to me , it sound slike tool pipe or operational stack in case of adding multiple subds.
when i said history i mean program recording and keeping every step you do, and that is what we are arguing against
i am not sure about xsi because never had it, but in generally in maya, you cannot go back and untriangulate if you added couple of bevels and edges You can but result would not be pleasant. that is what i am against for personally, because it does not work like modifier stack, rather it is there to slow you down


again no logical person would be against a modifier stack kinda thing for a modeler, but a construction histor that works like destruction history is no good. again i am use maya and lightwave and modo. no xsi here


How odd that people are arguing against features already. it's software people, not religion. it's new i'm sure it has some omisions, i'm sure that will be addressed in due course.

Here is a good modeler use of construction history - subd's. in xsi for instance you can simply apply a subd modifier to an object, modify points, add another subd, edit that subd's points, then go back and start editing both lower density meshes points adding in or removing as required while having the transforms passed down through the stack to the end geometry. in effect a form of heirarchical subd system, rather like the way z-brush handles it.

Additionally with a good construction history you can blend what's happened, mix between before and after points, this can help no end when creating morph targets which I believe is advertised as one of modo's strong points.

Then there's just general control, it's so frequent to have done something down the line that you then regret and wish you could not have done, untriangulating a mesh or whatever, or maybe just general procedural modeling.

Having a construction history doesn't take away anything, it doesn't hurt. Doesn't make anything else more difficult to use. In fact it should be totally transparent. It just adds some new possibilities and a more flexible workflow for those that need or want it. So i can't quite understand the antagonism towards such a thing here.

CGTalk Moderation
01-19-2006, 09:00 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.