PDA

View Full Version : Modo 302 released


sandykoufax
04-04-2008, 11:19 AM
http://forums.luxology.com/discussion/topic.aspx?id=25292

http://www.luxology.com/whatismodo/whatsnewinmodo302.aspx

--------------------------------------------------------
Esteemed community members,

We are quite pleased to announce to you that modo 302 is now available for immediate download for all existing 301 customers. Simply visit your account page to get yourself a healthy dose of 302 goodness. Both the Mac and Windows versions are available and we have added some additional treats! As many of you know, there are many, many enhancements, fixes and new features included in this upgrade. We have discussed a few of these changes in various podcasts and via video on Luxology TV. For a quick summary of the new features click here (http://www.luxology.com/whatismodo/whatsnewinmodo302.aspx).

For a complete list (ALL the gory details) go here (http://www.luxology.com/whatismodo/document/modo302_Improvements.pdf).

Along with the core code of modo getting a serious shot of adrenaline, we are also releasing modo in "headless" form for server use as well as the modo File IO SDK. These two additions have been oft requested from large studios and 3rd party developers. Of course, in typical Luxology fashion these two major additions are included for free for all 302 users.

Another significant change is the inclusion of the "modo In Focus" training series. All modo 302 will ship with the series included and easily referenced from the modo Exploration viewport. We feel that this series, by our very own Andy Brown, is so useful that everyone should have it.

As you can imagine, there will be quite a rush to download the new version and as such you may experience slower downloads than usual for the next few days. We have added additional servers to assist with the load.

I would personally like to thank the staff here for all of their hard work. From the dev teams countless hours hammering out cool new features and tracking down and killing little nasties, to the marketing crews heavy lifting on preparation of support materials and the updated webpages. From our webmasters tireless efforts wrangling servers, pushing files and generally losing sleep and years off his life to our intrepid testing squads whose feedback and guidance has proven invaluable in the effort to making modo as stable, efficient and sexy as possible. Software as complex and powerful as modo requires a tremendous team effort and I am so fortunate to have such a cast or remarkable people to work with. Of course, we also must thank our community for your support, patience and inspiration. Keep those images coming!

And now it is back to work for us on the NEXT big thing!

BP

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

Spin99
04-05-2008, 08:15 AM
I found preety amazing Modo now has an mdd format import.
So it should work really well with messiah : project and animate now :thumbsup:
All you need is a more complete animation package and you should be set?

Only thing I wonder about is displacement support as well as maps in Modo.
I wonder if it plays well with software like Mudbox ZBrush and Silo.
Looking like an awesome package.

P_T
04-05-2008, 09:51 AM
Have they added more curve based tools? their curve tools looks more like an afterthought in the earlier version.

Als
04-05-2008, 12:33 PM
Have they implemented history?
Also how is the connection to maya?
Otherwise I really like the way they are going, really cool!

Thanks


Als

ambient-whisper
04-06-2008, 01:11 AM
Have they added more curve based tools? their curve tools looks more like an afterthought in the earlier version.
they still feel like an afterthought. but i dont think that real curves with history will happen until modo has the ability to retain history. personally id love to see them tackle nurbs. and i mean really tackle them. with the way some packages are improving the nurbs technologies ( like moi3d ),they can be easy to use. some surfaces are just easier to do with nurbs. ( and dont get me started on solids. applications like space claim are exactly where id love to see modelling go toward )

P_T
04-06-2008, 07:40 AM
they still feel like an afterthought. but i dont think that real curves with history will happen until modo has the ability to retain history. personally id love to see them tackle nurbs. and i mean really tackle them. with the way some packages are improving the nurbs technologies ( like moi3d ),they can be easy to use. some surfaces are just easier to do with nurbs. ( and dont get me started on solids. applications like space claim are exactly where id love to see modelling go toward )I would have to agree with you. Something like a revolver chambers would be easier/faster to do with NURBS.

Anyway, I just checked luxology site out and it looks like they wrote a Rhino format translator, you have to pay a 100 bucks for it though. With that translator around, I don't think they'll be touching their curve tools for a while, pity... They should've tried to complete their modelling toolset before tackling animation.

cresshead
04-06-2008, 01:25 PM
modo is looking more interesting with each release, once it has a history/stack or can rig characters with bones etc i'll plonk down some cash for the demo and give it a spin.

still seems to be on track to be pretty well thought out next gen app and is moving forward in development well.

arquebus
04-06-2008, 02:23 PM
modo is looking more interesting with each release, once it has a history/stack or can rig characters with bones etc i'll plonk down some cash for the demo and give it a spin.
With their snail pace of developement that should be coming around about at version 801, maybe theyll have a set of dynamics features and a SDK to work with by about version 1401. I think Houdini is going to come on strong in VFX enviornments and Modo will be left in the dust.

ctguitars
04-06-2008, 03:36 PM
With their snail pace of developement that should be coming around about at version 801, maybe theyll have a set of dynamics features and a SDK to work with by about version 1401. I think Houdini is going to come on strong in VFX enviornments and Modo will be left in the dust.

HUH ...

Arquebus - read the Whats New in Modo 302 first please OR look at the forum thread announcing release of 302:

http://forums.luxology.com/discussion/topic.aspx?id=25292

Brad Peebler says "Along with the core code of modo getting a serious shot of adrenaline, we are also releasing modo in "headless" form for server use as well as the modo File IO SDK. These two additions have been oft requested from large studios and 3rd party developers. Of course, in typical Luxology fashion these two major additions are included for free for all 302 users."

OR better still go to the feature article at the top of this very site:

http://features.cgsociety.org/story.php?story_id=4475&referer=cgnews

SDK mentioned all over it!

ALSO - I know it is a secondary type solution at the moment BUT the .MDD format works fine with Modo for character animation import. Not to forget FBX support,

Cheers
Aidan

3dj
04-06-2008, 03:50 PM
With their snail pace of developement that should be coming around about at version 801, maybe theyll have a set of dynamics features and a SDK to work with by about version 1401. I think Houdini is going to come on strong in VFX enviornments and Modo will be left in the dust.

I think you are unfairly comparing too radically different applications. They have very little overlap as far as each app's strengths and capabilities.

-Jim

Photon4D
04-06-2008, 03:52 PM
Snail pace :twisted: ? If their development is "snail pace" , I don't know how you call the other 3D package vendor's development speed, baby snail pace ?? :D


With their snail pace of developement that should be coming around about at version 801, maybe theyll have a set of dynamics features and a SDK to work with by about version 1401. I think Houdini is going to come on strong in VFX enviornments and Modo will be left in the dust.

fez
04-06-2008, 04:00 PM
With their snail pace of developement.

Integrated modeling, painting, sculpting, and rendering does not strike me as "snail pace."

Modo's modeling and UV tools are ever more intuitive while the rendering technologies (ie. sub-pixel displacement, interactive preview, SSS, buffers, GI) are refined/enhanced with every release.

Character tools are coming. If the integrated modeling/texturing/sculpting/rendering toolsets are any indication, I think the addition of an equally flexible/feature-rich CA suite is going to make Modo a monster.

3dj
04-06-2008, 04:15 PM
With their snail pace of developement that should be coming around about at version 801, maybe theyll have a set of dynamics features and a SDK to work with by about version 1401. I think Houdini is going to come on strong in VFX enviornments and Modo will be left in the dust.


Hey guys, I think he was just trying us on for size. After all, he is using wings3d (not that there's anything wrong with that LOL!).

eirenicon
04-06-2008, 04:15 PM
i'll plonk down some cash for the demo and give it a spin.
:eek: You have to pay for the demo?

Mike RB
04-06-2008, 04:24 PM
:eek: You have to pay for the demo?

25$, they've been doing that for a while and if it was effecting sales they would have changed their policy by now. :) So you can't argue its hurting them. Take it or leave it.

ctguitars
04-06-2008, 04:36 PM
Hi Guys,

BEFORE RANTING ABOUT PAYING FOR THE DEMO and STARTING A WAR ON THIS AGAIN - please note:

Brad Peebler announced in last fridays MODCAST that they are shortly releasing a a full 30 day demo and it will be FREE including the Modo in Focus vids. A production evaluation pack will then also be available for the $25 which will include way more training ... along those lines anyway.

PLEASE listen to the modcast here - http://www.luxology.com/modcast/audio.aspx?id=39

Cheers

Aidan

3dj
04-06-2008, 04:36 PM
25$, they've been doing that for a while and if it was effecting sales they would have changed their policy by now. :) So you can't argue its hurting them. Take it or leave it.

I do think you get the $25 applied as credit towards the purchase price, but i may be wrong on that.

-Jim

P_T
04-06-2008, 07:34 PM
I do think you get the $25 applied as credit towards the purchase price, but i may be wrong on that.

-JimEven if that's true, it's still not a good deal for those who decided not to buy modo.

I just want to mention it because of that $99 Rhino translator and $99 sketchup importer, that's around 11% of Modo's value each. I don't understand why they didn't just include them as part of Modo along with all the other formats they support for free. After all, Rhino can still export as polygon and T-Spline for Rhino is available as well.

These decisions to charge what should've been free really baffles me. Why make it harder for potential customers to make a purchase decision. Say 3 people are considering Modo and they found out about those extra cost. If two of them still buy it and one decided not to because of that, they still lose $695 from $895 - (2 x $100 of the exporter cost).

Patrick210
04-06-2008, 08:23 PM
I think it's possible that the two inporters are written by third parties and they have to pay for each one they sell. So, if they included them, then MODO would cost even more for everyone. This way you can choose whether or not you want to pay for them.

arquebus
04-06-2008, 09:05 PM
I dont see why people here have to be so insulting, Im just offering an opinion. I like Modo and I think it has potential to take on Maya and Max if they address exactly what their outlook on what Modo needs to have, and then move forward to fullfill that outlook. All this "ooh, look at our flex tool, you NEED our flex tool" is getting really old. Maya and Max have market dominence not becuase they are the best 3D packages on the market. XSI and C4D have failed to market their products properly and educate their potential user base. Modo simply lacks the components to be a full fledged 3D package.

ctguitars
04-06-2008, 09:39 PM
No Insulting arquebus on my behalf - just pointing out that you made a throw away - to an extent - uninformed statement about the SDK facility NOT appearing in MODO until version 400765 or something while all the time it is actually part of the new v302.

If out of interest you had read the brief "whats new in 302" you would have been aware of this. Reading something in order to be more informed BEFORE making a comment would make people have more respect FOR your comments! A feeling that you at least made an effort ...

Thats how it appears anyway.

Aidan

marcinwuu
04-06-2008, 09:48 PM
they are not releasing an SDK actually. They are releasing a File IO SDK. Basically that means all you can do with it is program import/export plugin. I dont think Luxology will publish real SDK anytime soon. It seems they want to keep modo the way they like it - not wanting to turn it into a collection of plugins Lightwave style perhaps?

arquebus
04-06-2008, 09:56 PM
they are not releasing an SDK actually. They are releasing a File IO SDK. Basically that means all you can do with it is program import/export plugin.
QFA :wise:

kursad_pileksuz
04-07-2008, 12:03 AM
History is history. I doubt Modo will ever have history. Beside, not everyone needs history to make something nice.

Have they implemented history?
Also how is the connection to maya?
Otherwise I really like the way they are going, really cool!

Thanks


Als

3dj
04-07-2008, 01:45 AM
I dont see why people here have to be so insulting, Im just offering an opinion. I like Modo and I think it has potential to take on Maya and Max if they address exactly what their outlook on what Modo needs to have, and then move forward to fullfill that outlook. All this "ooh, look at out flex tool, you NEED out flex tool" is getting really old. Maya and Max have market dominence not becuase they are not the best 3D packages on the market. XSI and C4D have failed to market their products properly and educate their potential user base. Modo simply lacks the components to be a full fledged 3D package.
Sorry if you feel I was rude, but I found your comments some what ridiculous and un-informing.

I also take a stand with your comments on XSI and C4D. XSI has a very storied past is used by a lot of studios. C4D's user base is incredibly competent and educated, it's just a small user base.
-Jim

P_T
04-07-2008, 02:48 AM
I think it's possible that the two inporters are written by third parties and they have to pay for each one they sell. So, if they included them, then MODO would cost even more for everyone. This way you can choose whether or not you want to pay for them.I doubt that. Their ImageSynth was developed together with a third party and they made that clear, no such information on Rhino translator and Sketchup importer though. Oh and they're providing that IO SDK for free too aren't they?

Even if they were developed by a third party, it's still in both their interest to include those translator for free. What if other company like Autodesk decide to do something like that too? Modo will be in big trouble then. Noone will buy it if they have to pay for the FBX and other formats separately. Besides, didn't Brad say something about trying to get Modo to fit seamlessly in any pipeline?

3dj
04-07-2008, 03:24 AM
I doubt that. Their ImageSynth was developed together with a third party and they made that clear, no such information on Rhino translator and Sketchup importer though. Oh and they're providing that IO SDK for free too aren't they?

Even if they were developed by a third party, it's still in both their interest to include those translator for free. What if other company like Autodesk decide to do something like that too? Modo will be in big trouble then. Noone will buy it if they have to pay for the FBX and other formats separately. Besides, didn't Brad say something about trying to get Modo to fit seamlessly in any pipeline?

I may be wrong about this, but I am pretty sure FBX gets something for other apps usage, or reserves the rights to do so in the future. As I understand it in the 2d world, PhotoShop has to pay for tiff, PNG and used to for gif's(compuserve). Just using the algorithm to produce cmyk cost $$$ too.

-Jim

FreakWizz
04-07-2008, 07:49 AM
Besides, didn't Brad say something about trying to get Modo to fit seamlessly in any pipeline?

Yeah well his word as a salesman is always true..... ;)

Luxology have always claimed to be loyal to their LW users, And how well they play with others, than in 301 they dropped .lws and .ma support. FBX is a little broken, many of the 301 bugs and stability issues are still present.

The SDK is I/O only, and does not allow anyone else to add tools, procedurals, or anything else useful. And the loader/savers that are available cost extra. Was really hoping 302 was going to make Modo worth using, but i still rely on other tools for my modeling tools, because of the unreliability of Modo. Maybe in 402 it will be useable.

Charging $25 for the bug laiden demo that was 301, should be illegal.

Sonk
04-07-2008, 08:34 AM
Integrated modeling, painting, sculpting, and rendering does not strike me as "snail pace."

Modo's modeling and UV tools are ever more intuitive while the rendering technologies (ie. sub-pixel displacement, interactive preview, SSS, buffers, GI) are refined/enhanced with every release.

Character tools are coming. If the integrated modeling/texturing/sculpting/rendering toolsets are any indication, I think the addition of an equally flexible/feature-rich CA suite is going to make Modo a monster.

As a long time Modo user, IMO the development is slow. And have you actually used painting and sculpting in Modo? It's not as robust and ready for production as Luxology marketing have you think(industrial strength texturing!), heck even 302 still has problems with vector displacement:

http://forums.luxology.com/discussion/topic.aspx?id=25302

Painting is getting better with every release, but the in ability to have the layer blending type display in OpenGL as you paint on a mesh, makes it somewhat useless for complex texturing. Painting is still way behind, 3D-Coat in terms of speed and features(and that software hasn't been on the market that long either). Image base sculpting in 3D-Coat just works.

Host of other painting issue in Modo, that make it IMO not production ready..so i won't put it on a bullet point for Modo "fast pace" development. ;)

Bottomline, if your looking for decent sculpting/texturing tool look else where.

j3st3r
04-07-2008, 08:48 AM
I don't think that XSI or C4D marketing failed. Look, how many Digital Tutor DVD appeared lately on XSI, for example. It's more likely that the market has a certain inertia, based upon currently running projects, etc. that doesn't allow opening to other directions. Actually I think soon modo, XSI, and C4D will find it's stable place on market.

ThE_JacO
04-07-2008, 12:04 PM
Besides, didn't Brad say something about trying to get Modo to fit seamlessly in any pipeline?

As somebody who had to do tech supe work on a job where some modelers wanted to use modo all I can say is: "he still has a long way to go before I buy that".
Modo's I/O has been nothing short of atrociously painful, even with some of the super-popular-power-users everybody reveres on the project.

The file I/O kit is a step forward, hopefully the design philosophy of it won't be a blasphemy like some of the SDKs they produced before when they were in nt.

The app might be as nice as they claim it to be, I wouldn't know about it, but as far as pipeline fitting it's a square block in a round hole several sizes smaller.

arquebus
04-07-2008, 12:11 PM
http://forums.luxology.com/discussion/topic.aspx?id=24158&show=sdk

Gwot
04-07-2008, 04:23 PM
I've actually grown less impressed with this software over time. It has promise as a modeler, but it's nowhere near as good as it should be by now at 302 compared to when I bought it at 101. Instead I have a bunch of mediocre (mostly useless) implementations of sculpting, painting and animation features I'll probably never use. If you are going to implement a new toolset where there is already competition in the market for such features, you need to go big or go home.

I get more value out of Silo as a modeler, a dirt cheap piece of software compared to modo, because the developers are focused on it as a modeler and sculpting tool - both aspects of which are better implemented (for my needs as a character artist) than the stuff I paid for in modo. I thought 3d painting would add more value to modo when it was introduced, but it ended up being largely unusable for me. And even after a full product cycle I see very little improvement there.
Instead there are more animation features though! Yay! More stuff I don't need in this package. Guess it's great for the product guys and arch people who need flying cameras though. :rolleyes:

I'll give it an install once/if they actually do remove the stupid $25 charge to 'try before I buy' again (ridiculous approach for people who are already disappointed with your product and are sitting on the fence in the first place). And yes, this IS worth harping on because it's downright stupid and should be bitched about as much as possible till lux gets a clue. Stop insulting your existing user base with such silly money grabs. The learning material argument is crap too, since I have no interest in that stuff (I already own and know the damn software).

BTW, calling someone out and insinuating software piracy in that thread was not a very wise move either. It's actually a pretty lame attempt to discredit someone with valid claims, whether they are a registered user or not. Lux's user stats are probably not the most accurate data for referencing that sort of thing due to companies licensing in bulk, etc. In future, focus more on the beef than the person with the beef. It'll be better for your software (and your public image) in the end.

Spin99
04-07-2008, 04:47 PM
Yeh I was quite interested in Modo at some stage as a renderer but now find that at it's price point it somewhat half delivers for me. I still don't know much about it's displacement features or baking (documentation?) and there's no hair or dynamics, except you may be able to workaround that. And one would have to look into a separate animation package as well (add both + compare to XSI Essentials)

As for modeling I also think Silo is much better value at this stage and no, wouldn't pay for downloading the demo either.

P_T
04-07-2008, 05:15 PM
I've actually grown less impressed with this software over time. It has promise as a modeler, but it's nowhere near as good as it should be by now at 302 compared to when I bought it at 101. Instead I have a bunch of mediocre (mostly useless) implementations of sculpting, painting and animation features I'll probably never use. If you are going to implement a new toolset where there is already competition in the market for such features, you need to go big or go home. I'm inclined to agree. Instead of focusing on their initial features (modelling, UV, 3D painting and rendering), they're dabbling in other features where there are already tons of mature solutions for.

Anyway, I was just checking out Silo and I found this little bit of feature description.
Free File Converter

If you decide not to purchase Silo after your 30-day period expires, it will continue to function as a free file converter and "learning version".It's the total opposite to Luxo's marketing strategy. I might just give Silo a go.

Vandigital
04-07-2008, 08:22 PM
Even if that's true, it's still not a good deal for those who decided not to buy modo.

I just want to mention it because of that $99 Rhino translator and $99 sketchup importer, that's around 11% of Modo's value each. I don't understand why they didn't just include them as part of Modo along with all the other formats they support for free. After all, Rhino can still export as polygon and T-Spline for Rhino is available as well.

These decisions to charge what should've been free really baffles me. Why make it harder for potential customers to make a purchase decision. Say 3 people are considering Modo and they found out about those extra cost. If two of them still buy it and one decided not to because of that, they still lose $695 from $895 - (2 x $100 of the exporter cost).

Errrr I have a urge to say something about that little bit.... ever wonder why autodesk maya and 3ds are so much? Even XSI..... because all those fancy little exporters and fluid plugs and all that other crap is included thus the price goes up because they have to license it and pay the people that made it lol. So what your saying is people that dont use rhino or su should have to pay 1100 instead for two included plugins that may be useless to them. Think about it. Lightwave remains cheap yet they have more plugs then I can count for just about every thing there is.

ambient-whisper
04-07-2008, 10:27 PM
As a long time Modo user, IMO the development is slow. And have you actually used painting and sculpting in Modo? It's not as robust and ready for production as Luxology marketing have you think(industrial strength texturing!), heck even 302 still has problems with vector displacement:

http://forums.luxology.com/discussion/topic.aspx?id=25302

Painting is getting better with every release, but the in ability to have the layer blending type display in OpenGL as you paint on a mesh, makes it somewhat useless for complex texturing. Painting is still way behind, 3D-Coat in terms of speed and features(and that software hasn't been on the market that long either). Image base sculpting in 3D-Coat just works.

Host of other painting issue in Modo, that make it IMO not production ready..so i won't put it on a bullet point for Modo "fast pace" development. ;)

Bottomline, if your looking for decent sculpting/texturing tool look else where.

i honestly dont think that modos development is slow though. infact i wish they would slowdown on adding any more major features and work more on speed/stability even more. ( and finishing what they started. ) like you said yourself, 3d painting doesnt feel finished. its a good base to start from, but i dont see myself using it for finished texture work because of a few bugs, speed issues, etc. adding some features to stuff thats there is ok, but spreading the application thin is a bad idea.

Xtrude
04-07-2008, 11:56 PM
What do you use for 3D paint etc these days Martin?

fez
04-08-2008, 12:05 AM
As a long time Modo user, IMO the development is slow. And have you actually used painting and sculpting in Modo?

Painting and sculpting actually works pretty well with my Wacoms, but then again I use Modo mainly as a touch up tool. For me, 95% of details are added through direct mesh modeling and Photoshop. Old habits...

Stability aside, I still think Modo has much potential. I look forward to a day when I will be able to start AND finish a full 3D job within the same application. Having said that, I now can't help but look into 3Dcoat.

kursad_pileksuz
04-08-2008, 02:15 AM
I disagree. I actually use Modo for painting and texturing for production(at the moment I am painting another texture in the background) . My models generally have at least 4-10 4k(4096x4096) textures. And I can paint them in realtime in subd. I am generally pleased with speed of painting. I also enjoy symmetry painting and baking features alot. Baking is the strongest point of Modo texturing



Sculpting is not the strongest side of Modo. The tools are there to compliment standard modelling tools. I use them alot for production as well. But Zbrush has been my choice of scultping tool

As a long time Modo user, IMO the development is slow. And have you actually used painting and sculpting in Modo? It's not as robust and ready for production as Luxology marketing have you think(industrial strength texturing!), heck even 302 still has problems with vector displacement:

http://forums.luxology.com/discussion/topic.aspx?id=25302

Painting is getting better with every release, but the in ability to have the layer blending type display in OpenGL as you paint on a mesh, makes it somewhat useless for complex texturing. Painting is still way behind, 3D-Coat in terms of speed and features(and that software hasn't been on the market that long either). Image base sculpting in 3D-Coat just works.

Host of other painting issue in Modo, that make it IMO not production ready..so i won't put it on a bullet point for Modo "fast pace" development. ;)

Bottomline, if your looking for decent sculpting/texturing tool look else where.

P_T
04-08-2008, 03:08 AM
Errrr I have a urge to say something about that little bit.... ever wonder why autodesk maya and 3ds are so much? Even XSI..... because all those fancy little exporters and fluid plugs and all that other crap is included thus the price goes up because they have to license it and pay the people that made it lol. So what your saying is people that dont use rhino or su should have to pay 1100 instead for two included plugins that may be useless to them. Think about it. Lightwave remains cheap yet they have more plugs then I can count for just about every thing there is.It's kinda cool how I already answered your post before you even posted...

Just one question, how come Silo is able to somehow give away their file converter for free?
Free File Converter

If you decide not to purchase Silo after your 30-day period expires, it will continue to function as a free file converter and "learning version".You also should realised that I wasn't talking about all the other plugins like fluid, hair etc., just the file format converters.

Even if I use Rhino, I wouldn't pay the extra $100. Even if I use the translator, I'd still have to convert the NURBS to polygon first anyway, might as well just export from Rhino using OBJ or other formats that both Rhino and Modo support for FREE.

That "modo's gonna cost 1100 if it has 2 extra converters" argument doesn't make sense either. In 20x version, a few CAD formats were added and I don't think Modo's price went up by much if at all because of that.

Sonk
04-08-2008, 03:38 AM
Yeh I was quite interested in Modo at some stage as a renderer but now find that at it's price point it somewhat half delivers for me. I still don't know much about it's displacement features or baking (documentation?) and there's no hair or dynamics, except you may be able to workaround that. And one would have to look into a separate animation package as well (add both + compare to XSI Essentials)

As for modeling I also think Silo is much better value at this stage and no, wouldn't pay for downloading the demo either.

Baking in Modo is great. I've haven't run into any problems/bugs with it yet. It can bake high res detail into a low res model as normal map. One thing i haven't sucessfully done is bake a displacement map into a new displacement (with a new UV map), it seems to be a bug.

I disagree. I actually use Modo for painting and texturing for production(at the moment I am painting another texture in the background) . My models generally have at least 4-10 4k(4096x4096) textures. And I can paint them in realtime in subd. I am generally pleased with speed of painting. I also enjoy symmetry painting and baking features alot. Baking is the strongest point of Modo texturing



Sculpting is not the strongest side of Modo. The tools are there to compliment standard modelling tools. I use them alot for production as well. But Zbrush has been my choice of scultping tool

I bet you have at least G80 card? ;) i'm sure Modo performs will with that kind of card. However people like me who are still stuck on a old AGP slot, would be running low end card(7600 GS), which Modo doesn't seem to like. For example, even sculpting on a single 2K vector displacement map is slow on my computer liekwise with painting. Now in contrast, 3D-Coat handles multiple 4K maps fine. there is a definite difference in performs optimization between the 2 app, like Martin say needs to be address instead of adding more features/spreading programmers thin.

Modeling and UVing in Modo is pretty solid in terms of performance,speed,stability, but areas like 3D sculpting(vector displacement) and painting need improvements asap.

One nagging thing i dislike about sculpting in Modo is, the brush size actually change if you zoom in or out, only in Modo does this happen. Mudbox/Zbrush/3D-Coat/BodyPaint all preserve the brush size when your zooming in/out of 3D space. I was hoping this would be address in 302..but it wasn't.

Having your brush size change in that manner is counter productive, and makes the "Smooth brush size" somewhat useless?

If you guys are looking for a decent painting application and your running a low end card like mines, check out 3D-Coat(there is a demo , and no you don't have to pay $25 for it). My workflow is Modo(basemesh) > Mudbox(sculpting) > 3D-Coat (painting/baking). there isn't a Mac version, but sign up in the forum and ask for it, more demand = higher chances of a a Mac port.

Buexe
04-09-2008, 08:59 AM
I really think that the modo slogan "more better" is just so .... saying nothing?
It sound like a parody on cheesy marketing slogans. :D

leuey
04-09-2008, 06:50 PM
huh? 'more better' - where do you see that? The old slogan was (I think) 'modelling at the speed of thought'. The new one appears to be 'modo is for artists'...

I hope it's not 'more better'.

-G

Buexe
04-10-2008, 11:02 AM
I saw it on one of their web-banners here on cgtalk in the maya section

http://janberger.de/morebetter.jpg

FKMaster
04-10-2008, 12:30 PM
the best marketing is , the marketing, wich poeple taking about.... like here.... :)

marinello2003
04-10-2008, 02:57 PM
I do think you get the $25 applied as credit towards the purchase price, but i may be wrong on that.

-Jim

they charge for the demo for two reasons - 1) You get the FULL WORKING MODO and 2) You get over 3.2GB of training videos (you could spend hundreds on a site like digatal tutors to get the same amount of training you get with that). So belive me you ARE getting much more that $20 worth for your money.

republicavfx
04-10-2008, 03:28 PM
do they have paint select yet? i like modo but the lack of a paint select is really really annoying ...ray select and lassoing dont cut it IMO

BigPixolin
04-10-2008, 04:11 PM
they charge for the demo for two reasons - 1) You get the FULL WORKING MODO and 2) You get over 3.2GB of training videos (you could spend hundreds on a site like digatal tutors to get the same amount of training you get with that). So belive me you ARE getting much more that $20 worth for your money.

I don't need 3.2GB of training videos for a peice of software I may not even buy.
I just want to try the software to see if it fits my needs. And if it doesn't fit my needs the videos are useless.
You get the full working versions on 90% of the other demos out there that are free so this is not a bargain.

beaker
04-10-2008, 05:18 PM
It doesn't even matter anymore because they are coming out with the free 30 day demo without training material.

Personally I agree with Brad. I know my fellow artists and 99% of the people who want the free demo are never going to buy Modo in the first place. It is simply a loud minority.

P_T
04-10-2008, 06:57 PM
Personally I agree with Brad. I know my fellow artists and 99% of the people who want the free demo are never going to buy Modo in the first place. It is simply a loud minority.Be that as it may, a demo is a demo. Why force people to buy the training material? Make it available cheap and if people do want/need it, then they'll buy it. The "loud minority" wouldn't have anything to say then... now would they?

beaker
04-10-2008, 07:39 PM
Be that as it may, a demo is a demo. Why force people to buy the training material? Make it available cheap and if people do want/need it, then they'll buy it. The "loud minority" wouldn't have anything to say then... now would they?Because offering a free demo is a drain on resources and it costs a lot of money to offer (bandwith, time, support, licensing costs from macrovision, etc..). If only 1% is actually buying it, is it really worth giving it away for free? Atleast at $25 they are hopefully covering their costs and giving you an incentive with training material. Eyeon does the same thing with their $99 demo of Digital Fusion.

In reality, people who do this work professionally can easily afford the $25. Only people who were never going to consider buying it in the first place are the ones bitching

kursad_pileksuz
04-10-2008, 08:25 PM
I do not agree with comments on demo issue. I would never put my credit card if I am not sure about buying something. There should be other ways to test people`s seriousness without asking them to put down their personal information into something they "may" but or not. I am a very long time Modo user, it has become my 3rd arm, basically I love it. But I myself have not supported their desicion of charging for demo.

If you offer modo+3 gb of data for free that would be drain of resources really. But in reality real working version of modo would not be bigger than 30mb without help files, 100mb with help files.

BigPixolin
04-10-2008, 11:14 PM
It doesn't even matter anymore because they are coming out with the free 30 day demo without training material..

Yeah I heard that when the demo first appeared and still nothing.

Personally I agree with Brad. I know my fellow artists and 99% of the people who want the free demo are never going to buy Modo in the first place. It is simply a loud minority.

That is just completly un-true. I am very much considering purchasing Modo but I want the demo first to know for sure. If I wasn't considering to purchase Modo I wouldn't give a rats ass what they are doing with it.
In reality, people who do this work professionally can easily afford the $25. Only people who were never going to consider buying it in the first place are the ones bitching

That again is just way off base. In reality I have tried at least 100 demo's in my proffesional career and when they don't meet your needs or your style of doing things you do not buy the full version simple as that. It would of been a huge waste of money paying for those demo's no matter what you do for a living.

beaker
04-10-2008, 11:23 PM
Yeah I heard that when the demo first appeared and still nothing.It is coming in a few weeks according to the podcast.



That is just completly un-true. I am very much considering purchasing Modo but I want the demo first to know for sure. If I wasn't considering to purchase Modo I wouldn't give a rats ass what they are doing with it.

That again is just way off base. In reality I have tried at least 100 demo's in my proffesional career and when they don't meet your needs or your style of doing things you do not buy the full version simple as that. It would of been a huge waste of money paying for those demo's no matter what you do for a living.I said 99%, not 100%. Anyways when you are talking about 100 of demo's, 99 out of 100 of those are probably cheap sub $100 packages, not expensive ones.

arquebus
04-10-2008, 11:34 PM
Because offering a free demo is a drain on resources and it costs a lot of money to offer (bandwith, time, support, licensing costs from macrovision, etc..). If only 1% is actually buying it, is it really worth giving it away for free? Atleast at $25 they are hopefully covering their costs and giving you an incentive with training material. Eyeon does the same thing with their $99 demo of Digital Fusion.

In reality, people who do this work professionally can easily afford the $25. Only people who were never going to consider buying it in the first place are the ones bitching
Thats a very pervasive attitude for most all 3D software companys to tell amateurs to get screwed. The fact is that a lot of people in the cg industry are self taught. cg schools tend to only teach with apps that are used in the industry, the industry only seems to use apps that the majority have been taught with. So basically Autodesk has it pretty much to themselves as companys like Luxology, Softimage and Maxon treat the new generation who want to experiment with something new like they are crap.

A lot of start up companys that have potential to be something great go out of bussiness simply because they are out of touch with what the customer actually wants. This is one example of where Luxology is not really facing the reality of who there user base is and has a deluded idea of who is really switching to their app.

ThirdEye
04-10-2008, 11:46 PM
There's already another thread on the Modo demo subject, this is about 302, stick to the topic please.

beaker
04-10-2008, 11:46 PM
Thats a very pervasive attitude for most all 3D software companys to tell amateurs to get screwed. The fact is that a lot of people in the cg industry are self taught. cg schools tend to only teach with apps that are used in the industry, the industry only seems to use apps that the majority have been taught with. So basically Autodesk has it pretty much to themselves as companys like Luxology, Softimage and Maxon treat the new generation who want to experiment with something new like they are crap. What a load of junk. Amateurs are not actually learning from the 30 day demo. That is not enought time to actually learn a full app. Self taught people have "other means" if they are actually learning the app which I will not bring up here since it is a taboo topic (and will get people banned from the forum). Maya PLE sucks with those horrible watermarks. How many self taught people actually learned maya from the PLE instead of the "other means" version?

beaker
04-10-2008, 11:48 PM
There's already another thread on the Modo demo subject, this is about 302, stick to the topic please.yea, sorry, back on topic.

Imhotep397
04-13-2008, 09:12 PM
Even if that's true, it's still not a good deal for those who decided not to buy modo.

I just want to mention it because of that $99 Rhino translator and $99 sketchup importer, that's around 11% of Modo's value each. I don't understand why they didn't just include them as part of Modo along with all the other formats they support for free. After all, Rhino can still export as polygon and T-Spline for Rhino is available as well.

These decisions to charge what should've been free really baffles me. Why make it harder for potential customers to make a purchase decision. Say 3 people are considering Modo and they found out about those extra cost. If two of them still buy it and one decided not to because of that, they still lose $695 from $895 - (2 x $100 of the exporter cost).

If you want to complain about the pricing of the translators you need to go to the specific companies that the translators are for, because they set the prices. The translators were deemed necessary by the companies and Luxology supported them in the process of developing software and selling it through the Luxology site, but for the most part the Rhino and Sketchup translators were developed by the Rhino and Sketchup teams. If you want free translators talk to McNeel and Google respectively.

Imhotep397
04-13-2008, 09:19 PM
Thats a very pervasive attitude for most all 3D software companys to tell amateurs to get screwed. The fact is that a lot of people in the cg industry are self taught. cg schools tend to only teach with apps that are used in the industry, the industry only seems to use apps that the majority have been taught with. So basically Autodesk has it pretty much to themselves as companys like Luxology, Softimage and Maxon treat the new generation who want to experiment with something new like they are crap.

A lot of start up companys that have potential to be something great go out of bussiness simply because they are out of touch with what the customer actually wants. This is one example of where Luxology is not really facing the reality of who there user base is and has a deluded idea of who is really switching to their app.

I could go with you if Luxology didn't have a MAJOR number of licenses and an active technology exchange deal with both Pixar and ILM, countless game studios and small, medium and large print and industrial design studios, BUT THEY DO. Spending $25, with no watermarks, or other common handicaps is way better than the alternative.

cresshead
04-13-2008, 09:39 PM
of course products like 3dsmax, maya and xsi have a great set of import/export filters such as crosswalk, dwg, stl, point oven and fbx which on the whole make moving data pretty painless thesedays.

i beleieve that modo dropped the maya importer in the last release...which is a bit odd as apps like 3dsmax tend to keep old import formats such as 3ds, ls, lp etc rather than drop them.

leuey
04-14-2008, 02:30 AM
Luxology decided to focus on FBX since it's about the closet thing there is to a standard go-between format. I believe a Collada plug-in is available that a 3rd party made with the new I/O SDK. I would expect plenty more importers and exporters to start cropping up now that the file I/O SDK is out. An after fx scene exporter just showed up - coming from John Knoll and there will be plenty more.

It takes time folks. As far as dropping lws and ma - that's a mixed blessing. It gives the guy responsible for Importers/Exporters more time to work on FBX (which is probably as much as he has time for) but it does certainly leave some people wanting. If you bought 201/2/3 you can always use that for I/O.

As far as the demo is kind of a moot point now that a free 302 demo has been announced. The $25 demo/training/content bundle is still out there. Luxology offered free demos for years before doing the $25 demo - and now they offer both. So I think they have a pretty rounded view on the matter. There were definately some people who turned their back due to the lack of a free demo and there were definately some people who thought the $25 demo was worth their time and money.

The paid demo only existed for a few months and it's entirely up to them to decide if that experiment was 'worth it'. I always find it amusing when people on forums pipe in with how to run a company. I also find it amusing when somebody pipes up with a 'not production ready' statement because the application doesn't find their particular needs. Modo has been 'production ready' since 101. And indeed has been used on games, feature films, commercials, arch-viz and product shots ad naseum from the biggest production companies on the planet all the way down to sole proprietors. That's not to say it's going to automatically fit your needs - it may not, but saying it's 'not production ready' is a tad retarded in light of all the production that's already been done and is currently being done.

-Greg

ambient-whisper
04-14-2008, 02:38 AM
i dunno man, calling 101 production ready might be a stretch. its stability was quite bad, forcing you to develop a ctrl+s twitch, and it was pretty freakin slow to boot. technically, any application that has the ability to built a cube, split and delete polygons, could be used to build anything, but there has to be more to the "production ready" statement no? imo when modo reached 103, was when it was stable enough for some heavier lifting.

to me, production ready would be decided when i could whole heartedly recommend a company to adopt a product into its pipe because it will get the work done without having the users at the company tear their hair out. not sure if 101 would fit that bill.

sorry for going a bit off topic :D

leuey
04-14-2008, 03:31 AM
heh.. yes - ctrl-s on autofire. My main point was that 'production ready' is relative - depending on the project, company, etc. There were plenty of real projects being done in Modo prior to 102 being released. Of course it's gotten better since 101 - but there were also projects being done in Maya 1.0 and I don't feel Maya was 'great' until ver. 3. I probably wouldn't have recomended Maya 1.0 to anybody (at $40K too) - but real work was being done with it. Like I said, it's relative and it annoys me when I see a 'it's not production ready' or 'zbrush's interface makes it useless' or 'you can't do real work without nodes' - things like that when there's plenty of evidence to the contrary.

-Greg

P_T
04-14-2008, 04:14 AM
If you want to complain about the pricing of the translators you need to go to the specific companies that the translators are for, because they set the prices. The translators were deemed necessary by the companies and Luxology supported them in the process of developing software and selling it through the Luxology site, but for the most part the Rhino and Sketchup translators were developed by the Rhino and Sketchup teams. If you want free translators talk to McNeel and Google respectively.Where did you get your info about them being developed mostly by mcneel and google? I made a deduction that it was made by luxo because;

1. They give credit to Allegorithmic for co-developing imagesynth, they didn't credit mcneel/google in this case.

2. If they were developed by mcneel /google, logic would dictate that they would be sold by mcneel/google and not luxo.

3. This one's gonna blow your mind...
The Rhinoceros translator was built with the openNURBS SDK from McNeel & AssociatesYou do know what that "open" implies don't you?The translator was built with file access technology supplied by GoogleThat kinda implies that they're being developed by luxo no? ;)

beaker
04-14-2008, 04:56 AM
Where did you get your info about them being developed mostly by mcneel and google? I made a deduction that it was made by luxo because;

1. They give credit to Allegorithmic for co-developing imagesynth, they didn't credit mcneel/google in this case.
Brad has talked about it many times on the Modcast.


2. If they were developed by mcneel /google, logic would dictate that they would be sold by mcneel/google and not luxo.If the plugin was for Rhino or Sketch exporting or importing files to Modo then yes this would be the case but since they are plugins for Modo then I find it quite smart that they made a deal to sell the plugins through Luxology.

3. This one's gonna blow your mind...
You do know what that "open" implies don't you?That kinda implies that they're being developed by luxo no? ;)No it does not imply that. It means the sdk is open but Mcneel still controls the development of it but other people can contribute. It has nothing to do with the reader/writers for other applications being free. In fact if you goto http://www.opennurbs.org/ you will see this:
Unlike other open development initiatives, alliances, or consortia: Commercial use is encouraged. The tools, support, and membership are free. There are no restrictions. Neither copyright nor copyleft restrictions apply. No contribution of effort or technology is required from the members, although it is encouraged.

P_T
04-14-2008, 02:20 PM
Brad has talked about it many times on the Modcast. Still doesn't explain why Allegorithmic was credited and mcneel&google weren't. Perhaps you misunderstood what was being said by Brad in modcast. Besides, those 2 things I quoted from luxo site in my last post pretty much implies that they're being developed by luxo instead of the other way around. Luxo acquired SDK from mcneel/google and developed the translators.

No it does not imply that. It means the sdk is open but Mcneel still controls the development of it but other people can contribute. It has nothing to do with the reader/writers for other applications being free. In fact if you goto http://www.opennurbs.org/ you will see this:Err... I did. It says and I quote,
Note: openNURBS is an open source toolkit for reading and writing models in the 3DM format.To me, that "open source" bit implies that the IO SDK is available for free for people who want to develop a file translator between their software (whether free or commercial) and Rhino.

Also, if I remember correctly, people are talking about Luxo having just released their file I/O SDK with 302 while Rhino/sketchup translators are already available for 301 as beta.

Phil Lawson
04-14-2008, 03:02 PM
I can asure you that Luxology did not write these translators - nor did google or McNeel.

beaker
04-14-2008, 04:10 PM
Perhaps you misunderstood what was being said by Brad in modcast.Yes, apparently I missheard brad mention that it was being developed by a 3rd party 5 times. I don't understand why your slicing hairs. Why they didn't quote whoever developed the plugins, I have no idea, why don't you ask them instead of patronizing us about it.

Err... I did. It says and I quoteObviously you added those quotes and changed your post.

P_T
04-14-2008, 04:33 PM
Yes, apparently I missheard brad mention that it was being developed by a 3rd party 5 times. I don't understand why your slicing hairs. Why they didn't quote whoever developed the plugins, I have no idea, why don't you ask them instead of patronizing us about it.

Obviously you added those quotes and changed your post.Man... I don't know the circumstance in which you listened/viewed the modcast, I was just offering a possibility that you might've misunderstood, if I'm wrong then fine, don't need to get hostile. :)

As for changing my post... perhaps you should read it again... do you see any "Last edited by P_T:..." anywhere under my post? no, I don't think so, talk about slicing hair. :D

bbennett
04-14-2008, 08:33 PM
Hello All-


The SKP and 3Dm plug-ins are developed by a guy in Germany and were not directly written by either McNeel and Associates or Google. The developer used the modo File I/O SDK and also linked in libraries from the aforementioned companies.

Thanks,
Bob Bennett
Luxology LLC

Mike RB
04-16-2008, 08:21 PM
They seem to have posted the free eval for 302, so you can see for yourself how modo is. Good for all the people who want to do speed trials and render comparisons....

http://www.luxology.com/trymodo

SpaceTik
05-02-2008, 09:51 AM
modo has the best of everything.. if they haven't they will soon! :)

CGTalk Moderation
05-02-2008, 09:51 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.