sasquatch or Shave'HCut(need help)

[Mike RB]

You can't buy shave anymore for Lightwave.

[opera]

yes I know :)

I am going to change my pipeline.
So...

I am going to buy Maya. (I don't know if I have to buy Sasquatch for LW or invest in ShaveNHC for Maya)

For now I am using Lw render engine... so Sasquatch could be a good solution for me ( no compositing or mutlipass ...). But I am not sure about the quality of Sasquatch (bugs, limitations,etc...).
I would like to benefit of your point of view.

thanks :)

[KillMe]

look at www.worley.com to see what sasquatch is capable of - its pretty impressive really though limited in the fact its a post process effect so no relfections etc and no styling tools

but for some things you'd be hard pressed to find a nicer hair solution

cant speak for shave never used

[ThirdEye]

I've never used Sasquatch but i've seen some friends using it and it seemed painful to me for the styling part, plus there's the fact it's a post effect as someone else mentioned. On the other hand i've used Shave (the C4D version) and it was a real pain in the ass (slow, unreliable, bad looking) i'm so glad Maxon developed C4D HAIR, it's just dreamy. That said i'd choose Shave over Sas.

[CtrlAltDel]

When i learn how to utilize Sasquatch, i got the same feeling as the time i was "upgrading" from C4D to LW. :)

It feels kinda "barebone-ish" , no pretty GUI, awful preview, and windows that looks similar.
But once you've got the hang of it, the result could be amazing.

Attached is a snapshot from my progrees at the time i gave it a serious couple of days.
For more advanced furs and hairs, check out the tutorials and gallery in www.worley.com (http://www.worley.com/).

[cgeveryday]

I STILL prefer to use Shave over Sas. Unfortunate it's not integrated though so sas is a better option for better workflow I think.

Shave is the mac!!

[jeremyhardin]

haven't used shave for maya, but I used XSI hair, which I understand is either based on shave or is shave.

I never want to use Sasquatch again, so help me God. it's so bitchy about how you light it, you can't just use your normal scene lighting on the hair and expect it to look like hair. and it doesn't show up in reflections, etc. not to mention that long hair has to by styled in modeler and setup/rendered in layout.

when you turn hair on in XSI, it looks like hair immediately, even with default lighting. the shader just works, with raytraced or shadow mapped lights. it casts shadows and shows up in reflections. it was simple to style and animate. so if that's any indication of how it will perform in maya, go for that.

IMHO, of course.

[pelos]

well i have use all of them, i got my hands on shave and hair cut for LW once, and you dont know who easy was compare to Sas, the only thing is that was a outside program of LW, (you load the file, set some collicion balls on the skull) and then PUFF done you got hair and the stylish was exactly as it is on XSI.

and for using it on maya has to do many stuff before getting the hair, in XSI, select the polys, or a weight map, and click Hair! AND vuala, a very nice looking rendering hair.

[digital verve]

SAS is very overated in my opinion. I hear they couldn't use it on a certain show because it was very problematic. Apart from FPrime, I have always found Worley plugins ui unfriendly. A new hair plugin worth checking out when it is released is:
http://www.binaryartsinc.com/FiberFactoryIV.htm

The volumetric hair can be seen by all LW including reflections and refractions unlike sas. The website shows interactive hair styling in it's hair modeler, plus it seems from the pics that the hair can be seen in opengl and viper. Don't know when it will be released, but on paper it looks like what LW users have been waiting and looking for in a hair module.

[scotttygett]

I was pretty hard on Sasquatch Lite when I first applied it to a model and it didn't look right. I hope none of the previous posters were referring to Sas Lite as if it were Sasquatch, the two are very different. Sas Lite doesn't cast shadows, except internally, and there isn't a way to "trick" it to cast shadows that I've found. Sasquatch has shadows. It's the difference between a taste and a program that costs as much as LightWave but seems well worth it.

Here's a thread about getting good Sas Lite results:

http://www.newtek.com/forums/showthread.php?t=47447&highlight=Sas+lite

To quote myself:

"I did uncover an artifacting problem with excluded lights, that is, which used the exclusion feature of the Objects tab of the individual Light panel -- which will slightly affect specularity with backlit reflections. These lights are excluded, there shouldn't be anything. The fix/workaround was to change the excluded lights to spotlights pointed-away from the hair object. It also works to assign falloff to the lights after they're changed to spotlights."

"The only other "problem" lights will be "non-spotlight" point, distant, etc. lights in range of a Sas Lite object which will cause the hair to glow as if it were luminescent."

"One can definitely add "sas lite" to the same object several times (this is called "instancing") and get some interesting effects that way, such as fine hairs for a widow's peak, or colors for different surface patches on a giraffe using surface names. And one can have invisible scalp polygons under the scalp surface, and similar tricks. The one danger is having transparent polygons in between sas lite hair and the camera -- they will block sas lite hair out."

The hair guide scene included with LightWave is very useful, you can start with it to learn to morph whiplashing hair, if you know how to do that trick, and I've seen some work by celshader where she used cloth dynamics and applied them to hair.

I've not used other hair systems, nor the grown-up Sasquatch, which is probably formidable. But Sas Lit is mighty powerful, and I'm very glad it's in LW9.

[jeremyhardin]

I was pretty hard on Sasquatch Lite when I first applied it to a model and it didn't look right. I hope none of the previous posters were referring to Sas Lite as if it were Sasquatch, the two are very different...
I was referring to sasquatch full, and including sas lite in my complaints.

[dobermunk]

http://www.stickman.de/content/gallery/G_Char/pics/bearEneu.jpg
ssaaaaaaassssssssskqqquuuwuuaaaaaaaaatttttttttsssssssssccchhhhhhhh! Gotta love it!

[ThirdEye]

That fur doesn't look exactly realistic :shrug:

[Ed Bittner]

And the smiling polar bear is supposed to?

E.

[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.