PDA

View Full Version : Modo's not getting along too well with my Graphics Card...


Jacobo
05-02-2008, 01:04 AM
Hi;

I've started getting into Modo and really gotten the hang of it in the past couple of days but there's something that bugs me somewhat and that is the sad reality of not being able to sculpt efficiently. My machine virtually hangs when I turn on the "Advanced OpenGL" mode even when I'm working with sculpt textures that are sized no more than 1K... So I opt to sculpt in shaded mode where I have to crank up the subdiv level to an insane degree to be actually able to see what I'm sculpting, which yields a situation no different than what I've mentioned just previously... I'm on core2Duo 2.66 ghz machine with 3 GB of Ram and my graphics card is an Asus GeForce 6200 TurboCache and I'm using the latest non-beta drivers. The Advanced OpenGL features of other applications such as Maya and Zbrush work quite well on my machine though and that's what's bothering me primarily... Having been used to sculpting in Zbrush on 2.5D pixols, I can go as high up as 6 million polygons or so on an object and still go on and paint in fine detail without delay and hiccups and I must confess that I really am not fond of Modo's sculpting tools being texture resolution dependent in the sense that it sort of limits you to stay away from sculpting in fine detail... So, does one need a really high-end graphics card like a monster expensive quadro FX to be able to take advantage of the "Advanced OpenGL" mode in Modo?

Thanx in advance;

AJ

cresshead
05-02-2008, 11:39 AM
in regards zbrush and open gl, zbrush doesn't use open gl it uses it's own 2.5d software driver so it's out on it's own in such regards so will run on virtually ANY pc with enough pc RAM to hold the models.

modo is pushing open gl with shaders etc so yeah your going to have to ''keep up'' with the latest cards and drivers which makes selecting a mid/low end laptop difficult with modo..

with zbrush it's more or less a non issue....same with 3ds to some regard as that too has an option of software driver [heidi] as well as open gl and direct x.

in the end maya, modo, lightwave seem to need/want you to run them exculsivly on current hi/top specc'd graphics workstations not pc gaming machines or office laptops.

would benice to have some lower end options for display as well for people on the move who want to 'sketch' or play with low end pc's like the eee pc etc.

Puzzle3d
05-02-2008, 05:18 PM
I have a mac pro with a quadro 4500 fx and its useless to sculpt with. Many of us Mac users are in the shit house as far as sculpting goes with Modo. Scan the Luxology forums and find out more. Mr Peebler says he dont have those problems, but then posts that he has a nearly $3000 video card. The 'BUY MODO NOW" button on the website mentions what the system reqs are, and I meet them, provided I dont try sculpting I guess I should be a happy camper. Lux needs to be forth coming about what hardware actually works on the Mac platform so customers can make real-world decisions about Modo functionality. I still prefer Modo modeling/texturing and simple animation, over my other apps, but sculpting for me right now with Modo is dead.

Jacobo
05-02-2008, 05:49 PM
Minimum Requirements as stated in Modo's web site:


Minimum 1GB RAM (I have 3GB)
Minimum 100MB available hard disk space (1.5 TB)
(3GB required for all content and integrated training materials)
Mouse or pointing device (pressure sensitive tablets supported) (WACOM INTUOS III)
Monitor resolution of 1024 x 768 or greater (Yeah, got that)
Graphics card with OpenGL support (Whattha? :)
A friend of mine suggested that I should download the trial version of Silo and check out the sculpting speed, so I did... It uses a very similar approach to modos but with the notable difference of not being texture resolution dependent... I upped the objects tessellation to an insane degree and was still able to paint, then you can save out your Disp or normal map in whatever res you like... You don't need to refine the mesh via an incredibly expensive OpenGL shader... Although the tools and options in terms of sculpting and texture painting (which Silo doesn't have) that Modo offers are a whole lot more robust, it's approach to optimizing the digital sculpting experience is not that great... Except for Zbrush, Silo and MudBox's approach seems pretty straight forward. No fancy OGL shaders required, you up the tessellation as far as required, hide unnecessary parts if you go way too high and concentrate on areas that need minute detail... Except for the sculpting part, Modo is more than outstanding. It's development infrastructure is one of the most modular and innovative... I just wish they could completely alter the sculpting work flow to make it more efficient, but I highly doubt it... My guess is that they'll just keep saying that they improved the adv. OGL shader on and on version after version... The users will all be scared to save out sculpt textures higher than 2K (Working with layers seems like a poor excuse also)

My 2 Cents;

AJ

rtalz
05-04-2008, 08:15 AM
I have to agree somewhat. Modo is a awesome program overall. However, it can be a power hungry beast. Mesh sculpting in Modo doesn't tax modo much at all. It's a different story when we talk about Image sculpting. You absolutely need at least a high-mid to high range card. A 6200 w/turbo cache simply is not enough for modo. I recommend at least a 512mb 8600gt if you are going to be using large image maps. Go higher if you can but if you can't then the 8600 should do you fine.

Jacobo
05-04-2008, 07:25 PM
Thanx a lot rtalz for the tip, it's somewhat comforting to know that a Quadro is not a requisite for Modo. I've been meaning to upgrade my graphics card for sometime, I might just try and get myself a GeForce 9000 plus, but I heard that the Nvidia series that range from 8000 to 9000 plus are optimized for DirectX10 and naturally for Vista. Is that true or do they run well on DirectX9 properly when installed on a computer that runs on XP (which I have)... Btw, I do hope that Luxology revamps the sculpting workflow so that it gets lighter and more flexible to work with... I've been on the look out for a platform that unifies Modeling+texturing+sculpting work flow and Modo came out to be the most perfect app out there that does exactly that, but resolution dependency is definitely a bummer...

Kage06
05-04-2008, 08:32 PM
Least you can get on it lol!

I got an e-mail though which I may try and run through, about Microsofts C++ library and the program on my machine,

but I only have like 13 days left of the trial, and I can't even run the damn thing.

Jacobo
05-04-2008, 10:32 PM
Least you can get on it lol!

I got an e-mail though which I may try and run through, about Microsofts C++ library and the program on my machine,

but I only have like 13 days left of the trial, and I can't even run the damn thing.

You lost me there... :shrug:

rtalz
05-05-2008, 05:18 AM
The newer cards in the 8xxx series work well with dx10 the 9xxx series works well with dx10 and is optimized for HD content/playback. Both work with dx9. Modo doesn't use DX at all btw.

I actually gravitated to modo for the same reason as you. Having the option to sculpt,paint, texture and render during or after you are done modeling is fantastic. Still alot of room for improvements but luxology is definitely heading in a good direction.

shokan
05-08-2008, 03:19 PM
I'm glad a ran across this thread. I have a low-end machine with integrated video. I think I'll start out with Silo and ZBrush.

rtalz
05-10-2008, 09:31 PM
If all you want is sculpting and have a pretty old graphics card/machine, you should go with zbrush. Zbrush doesn't use the gpu. Just the cpu and ram. I can get over a million polygons in zbrush on my retired computer with a 2.5 ghz processor and 1/2 gb of ram. Gotta love those pixols. Silo uses the gpu so it's pretty much in the same boat as modo only its allot cheaper up front. :)

shokan
05-10-2008, 11:45 PM
Thanks. I've pretty much come to the same conclusion. As an artist, I was attracted first to ZBrush, then the others. So, now I've come back to looking at ZBrush, this time seriously. Yay! One program that has gotten me interested also for its utility factor and price (free) is GSculpt with its "procedural modeling". It's something like construction history. Anyway, I think I might use it for roughing out stuff for ZBrush sometimes. What I'm aiming for is definitely in the organic sculpture vein. I've attached a digital drawing here. This is the first artwork I've done in seven years and has as a subject matter a rough chapter of my own past. I can already see how I can use ZSpheres to develop part of this in 3D. I'm really looking forward to ZBrush, as soon as I can afford it. Meanwhile, GSculpt.
Here's a small SlideShare series for GSculpt.
http://www.slideshare.net/search/slideshow?q=gsculpt&submit=post&commit=Search

an interesting note...back around 2001, I was looking at ZBrush and Amorphium (by Play Inc back then). I liked the sculpture aspect of Amorphium and didn't care for the look of the faux 3D 2.5D painting examples from ZBrush (still don't), so I got Amorphium. I found it useless.

Kage06
05-11-2008, 01:37 AM
All 3D software uses the "GPU" to show graphics.
The CPU is too slow to calculate what you do in Z-Brush in real time like it does.
It uses the CPU to render the scenes like any other graphics package, but when in the viewports, the GPU is being used to display polygons and such.

Jacobo
05-11-2008, 09:26 PM
All 3D software uses the "GPU" to show graphics.
The CPU is too slow to calculate what you do in Z-Brush in real time like it does.
It uses the CPU to render the scenes like any other graphics package, but when in the view ports, the GPU is being used to display polygons and such.

I don't agree fully... It is all a matter of design from the ground up. The "Pixols" are pixels that hold RGBA plus Depth information in ZBrush and that differs a whole lot from what the GPU's are primarily designed to draw which are surfaces drawn around points that have X,Y and Z coordinates. The 2.5D approach is probably the best concept yet, cuz that seems to be the only "viable" way detailed displacement could be "painted" on an object, and I don't mean just on mid-end machines, but from the most powerful ranging to the very modest... What surprised me with this roadblock in Modo was that the software was very very meticulously and empathetically designed from its very foundations to be highly modular and customizable and suffice to say that they really have achieved that goal. They seem to have the ability to look ahead and see where the industry is headed and make either additions accordingly, vector displacement support truly illustrates that... But, I do believe that they have made a design error when they decided to make the displacement process texture resolution dependent where Modo has to write each and every brush stroke in real time to a pre-saved, very high bit depth image simultaneously as you paint and to be honest, for high detail one always needs an image way bigger than 1K and even Brad admits in one of the training videos that a 4K image is quite large. but that's hardly the case in production where detailed disp maps start at the very least around 3K, especially if it's supposed to appear on a 2K film... The process should have been straight forward and without any fancy, gimmicky stuff like special OGL shaders and stuff. Go as high up on tessellation as you can and later on when you're done, bake that out onto an image with a size as big as you require... Silo's approach isn't any different, but is a whole lot more concrete where you go up as high on tessellation as you can and you can still paint without lag time between your brush strokes... When you're finished, you just save out the map, that's all there's to it...

AJ

CGTalk Moderation
05-11-2008, 09:26 PM
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.