PDA

View Full Version : Modo 401 Partial


Imhotep397
02-06-2009, 01:08 AM
Just what the doctor ordered (hopefully) Independent Innovation.

Modo 401 Partial Preview (http://www.luxology.com/modo/401.introduction)

ammonite
02-06-2009, 02:31 AM
Wow! That"s What I'm Waiting For.

John-S
02-06-2009, 03:57 AM
wow!

:buttrock:

AndrewATL
02-06-2009, 04:10 AM
wow indeed

DuttyFoot
02-06-2009, 04:44 AM
wow thats some impressive stuff

Fede
02-06-2009, 05:02 AM
If they going to reveal character animation tools, they are going to have a serious app on their hands.... These previews look awesome.

ViCoX
02-06-2009, 09:03 AM
Great stuff, I`m happy to see that theres more coming aswell. : )

ThirdEye
02-06-2009, 11:10 AM
I don't get it. Is that fur pure geometry or what? :curious:

samartin
02-06-2009, 11:35 AM
I don't get it. Is that fur pure geometry or what? :curious:

Don't think so as it is being marketed as fur, replicators work with geometry which is an enhanced instance as I understand it.

Lone Deranger
02-06-2009, 12:25 PM
Only at rendertime.

I don't get it. Is that fur pure geometry or what? :curious:

craigjarvis
02-06-2009, 12:38 PM
This is certainly turning into an interesting app,what lightwave could have become.
I wonder if the standalone price will increase.

ThirdEye
02-06-2009, 01:31 PM
Only at rendertime.

Isn't that superslow? I mean, if i have say a lion model covered in fur doesn't it take forever to render 1 million polygonal hairs?

R10k
02-06-2009, 03:24 PM
wow thats some impressive stuff

Really? For me, nothing brings back memories of Truespace 4 like volumetric lighting. Is that really worth saying, 'wow' over? Is fur, or object instancing? I guess not every app has those, but... I feel like they've been standard in most large apps for a long time now. Obviously there's more to come in the reveal but... this feels more like Modo catchup than anything wow worthy.

ecore
02-06-2009, 03:33 PM
looks good but nothing special.

JCAddy
02-06-2009, 04:16 PM
Really? For me, nothing brings back memories of Truespace 4 like volumetric lighting. Is that really worth saying, 'wow' over? Is fur, or object instancing? I guess not every app has those, but... I feel like they've been standard in most large apps for a long time now. Obviously there's more to come in the reveal but... this feels more like Modo catchup than anything wow worthy.

Well, to people who find the software useful and use it on a daily basis, getting new tools like this can be a good thing. Ever think of it from that point of view? If you look at it the way that you're looking at it, almost any software update is pointless now a days. How about that view cube in Max?

KristopherLee
02-06-2009, 04:33 PM
How about that view cube in Max?

Now that sir, was funny.

ubermensch76
02-06-2009, 05:23 PM
The fur system in Modo looks like a tamer version of maya's paintfx system but with the bonus of using your own meshes. Not bad. The rest looks so so ..

CHRiTTeR
02-06-2009, 05:28 PM
Really? For me, nothing brings back memories of Truespace 4 like volumetric lighting. Is that really worth saying, 'wow' over? Is fur, or object instancing? I guess not every app has those, but... I feel like they've been standard in most large apps for a long time now. Obviously there's more to come in the reveal but... this feels more like Modo catchup than anything wow worthy.

Well maybe you didnt notice but the fur seems to work really well with GI, which is not that common ;) ...unless its superslow ofcourse

visionmaster2
02-06-2009, 05:53 PM
great update.

and it's look so fast ! :eek:


.

ngrava
02-06-2009, 05:56 PM
Well maybe you didnt notice but the fur seems to work really well with GI, which is not that common ;) ...unless its superslow ofcourse


You hit the nail on the head there. The really impressive thing for me was seeing the demo movie (elsewhere on Lux site) that shows fur/grass rendering in the render preview window with GI and volumetric lighting in real-ish-time. No other software that I know of does that. The only think that kinda sux about this partial reveal is that all the features that they showed are all the ones that we already knew about before hand. They've been showing little bits here and there for the last few months so it kind of takes the sting out of this announcement a little. Still, some pretty cool looking images. I'm really excited about this release but I really wish we where going to see Character animation tools but I seriously doubt that.

PS. if you download those videos, they are actually full screen captures! You can really get a close look at the UI changes.

T4D
02-06-2009, 06:01 PM
boring .. 401 need more then that..:hmm:

Mike RB
02-06-2009, 07:03 PM
The fur is geometry created at rendertime. Millions and billions of polys, but they render very fast, and can be shaded like any other geometry. It's really a special case of their replicator technology that has specific hair attributes and generates the meshes on the fly instead of needing source meshes. Works fine in the preview, with GI, and any other surface properties... blurry reflections... whatever.

Venkman
02-06-2009, 07:05 PM
Is everyone just holding their breath, waiting for Luxology to announce character animation tools? What I saw on the site looked pretty hot.

Tama
02-06-2009, 07:11 PM
boring .. 401 need more then that..:hmm:

Didn't you like the glass bubbles?
I've never been fond of the gui but others seem to like it.
Like going to a restaurant that has a million item menu, too many ways to customize for my
liking but then that's probably just me.

I do like the look of the renders it produces. Maybe once they get serious about making it
a full fledged animation package I will take another look.

ViCoX
02-06-2009, 07:41 PM
Fastest modelers I have met have always been modo users, and I`m love with xsi.
Modo is great now, but it promises even more!

leuey
02-06-2009, 08:13 PM
I don't think anybody is saying 'wow' over volumetric lighting...it's just nice that it's there now because it hasn't been previously, so it's worth mentioning. I don't think anybody said 'wow, LW Core can instance 3 cylinders..sign me up!' People are just happy to have it b/c it has been missing.

Replicators are far more than just object instancing - Modo already had instancing in the form you're thinking of. Somebody on the modo forums posted an image with 3,000 instances of a character...millions of polys...good stuff. Just for fun I asked for the model and rendered out an image in 401 beta (I'm a tester) with about 500,000 instances..(or maybe it was 1.5 million...I'm not sure I think the point cloud surface generator I was using had a 1,000,000 particle ceiling but I had 3 different models replicated......all at about 40% density to fit them)..anyway it doesn't matter, there was over 5 billion polys rendered...real polys - no displacement dicing anywhere. Replicators are a big deal - you can paint the density, scale and normal values using weight maps or bitmaps with modo's integrated paint tools, randomize all sort of values.....I've brought in giant CAD assemblies from Solidworks that would choke without replicators to handle all the bolts and things.

I've had Maya and MR choke on me trying to render at most 1,000 instances of animated cilia (on the inside of a lung) - I re-created that scene in 401 (with animated replicas) in about 10 minutes, probably at least 100,000 cilia all rendered with GI and SSS (with the SSS being lit by the GI no less) and the renderer had no issues whatsoever (and I could fly around it reasonably fast in the preview window....)

You can also replicate other replica hierarchies. I replicated leaves all over a tree and then replicated the tree all over a landscape and further replicated leaves all over the ground using modo's full painting and texturing system to place them exactly where I wanted them, how dense and how big. Yes, you can do things like that in Houdini - minus the painting bit (which is big)...but it sure is nice to do it in modo.

Just b/c it's called instancing doesn't mean it's the same ol' thing - and believe me, Preview in 401 is not the 'same' as any other iterative renderer either.

-Greg

Really? For me, nothing brings back memories of Truespace 4 like volumetric lighting. Is that really worth saying, 'wow' over? Is fur, or object instancing? I guess not every app has those, but... I feel like they've been standard in most large apps for a long time now. Obviously there's more to come in the reveal but... this feels more like Modo catchup than anything wow worthy.

Baldric
02-06-2009, 08:24 PM
boring .. 401 need more then that..:hmm:

Still looking for that 'perfect' girlfriend?

DimensionalPunk
02-06-2009, 09:24 PM
Looks cool, I'll second the request for character animating tools though.

KristopherLee
02-06-2009, 09:26 PM
You raise some good points, Leuey. I fell in love with the 302 eval version of Modo but since I'm so involved in Maya, it was hard to just let it go. Sure I can combine the two but, eh, don't know. It's good to see Modo grow into what looks like a future of possibility. I know it's native renderer is fantastic.

Imhotep397
02-06-2009, 10:43 PM
Well maybe you didnt notice but the fur seems to work really well with GI, which is not that common ;) ...unless its superslow ofcourse

The interesting thing was that I saw about 1.6B polygons worth of replicated highly detailed Rhinos with GI and real sky render in 10 seconds (the same time as the single mesh that had a couple hundred thousand polygons). Here was one other example that I think rendered in the same time too.

Instances:
http://content.luxology.com/modo/401/img/302Nancy.png

New Replicator technique:
http://content.luxology.com/modo/401/img/401Nancy.png

Imhotep397
02-06-2009, 10:53 PM
Character animation tools may be in there as there is a "Setup" tool palette that hasn't been opened up and revealed yet.

DennisVR
02-06-2009, 11:13 PM
Character animation tools may be in there as there is a "Setup" tool palette that hasn't been opened up and revealed yet.

There's also a Layout-tab and Groups-tab which we haven't seen opened yet :)

Lone Deranger
02-06-2009, 11:31 PM
Here's a question for 302 users (and 401 beta testers)?
How's the stability nowadays? I remember back in the days of 103-201 there were a lot of complaints about this.
Have there been noticeable improvements in this area?
And what about 64bit?

Sonk
02-07-2009, 12:34 AM
Here's a question for 302 users (and 401 beta testers)?
How's the stability nowadays? I remember back in the days of 103-201 there were a lot of complaints about this.
Have there been noticeable improvements in this area?
And what about 64bit?

Modo 301 is a step up over 103-201 in terms of stability. It basically got more stable with every point release.

DizzyJ
02-07-2009, 01:45 AM
Here's a question for 302 users (and 401 beta testers)?
How's the stability nowadays?

I have a love-hate relationship with Modo, in part because I find the feature I most want to use--displacement painting (aka, Zbrush light), causes Modo to crash way too much. I quite using it and am nervous using mesh painting with high poly counts.

Hopefully, with 401, they'll address that, make the painting tools even stronger and add these new features. I am sad to see that they don't appear to be offering a better, nodal interface for the renderer, though. I strongly dislike the list view as a means of dealing with shader construction.

Lone Deranger
02-07-2009, 01:59 AM
This was actually one of the reasons I lost interest in modo back in the day and went with XSI instead leaving my 103 license where it was.

I am sad to see that they don't appear to be offering a better, nodal interface for the renderer, though. I strongly dislike the list view as a means of dealing with shader construction.

DizzyJ
02-07-2009, 02:15 AM
I suspect if 401 doesn't have a nodal view, 501 will. Eventually, it will undermine the render package if they don't give people a more professional environment to work with shaders. The bigger the project, the more the list view is a liability.

Novakog
02-07-2009, 04:02 AM
Isn't that superslow? I mean, if i have say a lion model covered in fur doesn't it take forever to render 1 million polygonal hairs?

This image was posted by Brad Peebler a while ago on the Lux forums:

Link (too big to put directly in a thread) (http://content.luxology.com/gallery/1136cf930bf424dc3cf397eb3e61f561.jpg)

And Bob Bennett revealed that it had 1.1 trillion polygons at rendertime, and was rendered in 5:53 (read: less than six minutes) on an 8-core machine - with GI no less. So no, it's not superslow.

GQ1
02-07-2009, 05:06 AM
401 is looking pretty sweet.
I am hoping we’ll see some form of CA (IK/FK) in the next reveal.

ThirdEye
02-07-2009, 10:31 AM
This image was posted by Brad Peebler a while ago on the Lux forums:

Link (too big to put directly in a thread) (http://content.luxology.com/gallery/1136cf930bf424dc3cf397eb3e61f561.jpg)

And Bob Bennett revealed that it had 1.1 trillion polygons at rendertime, and was rendered in 5:53 (read: less than six minutes) on an 8-core machine - with GI no less. So no, it's not superslow.

That image is about replicators though, not about hair, does that mean hair and replicators share the same technology? Thanks for the reply, this is becoming interesting :)

Nemoid
02-07-2009, 11:09 AM
yes it actually seems they share same technology.:)

duke
02-07-2009, 01:21 PM
As much as I love modo, being in the archi viz business I use 3dsmax and VRay (and increasingly, sketchup for modelling) - modo simply can't compete on that level, but what I do like using it for is modelling things that are more complex than a box, and painting, but like the previous poster the frequency of crashes and general instability is a real turn-off.

T4D
02-07-2009, 02:07 PM
Didn't you like the glass bubbles?
I've never been fond of the gui but others seem to like it.
Like going to a restaurant that has a million item menu, too many ways to customize for my
liking but then that's probably just me.

I do like the look of the renders it produces. Maybe once they get serious about making it
a full fledged animation package I will take another look.

Many many times have you need to do bubbles like that ??
Cool effect YEAH :thumbsup:

But been doing 3d for awhile now and well looking back i have NOT used Instancing/Replicator on many scenes ? it's not High on my list of Modo 401 Must have features... & XSI instancing work Extremely well for me anyway. and LW HD instance is great too and works differently to XSI's ..modo different again.. ?? wow :rolleyes: .

I uses XSI more and more because it has what i need everyday,.. and I use Modo, Lightwave And Maya when there are workflow shortcuts OR I just don't know XSI well enough..:blush:

R10k
02-07-2009, 02:25 PM
Just b/c it's called instancing doesn't mean it's the same ol' thing - and believe me, Preview in 401 is not the 'same' as any other iterative renderer either.

Interesting info. I guess time will tell how good this thing is.

P_T
02-07-2009, 05:07 PM
How's the curve based modelling tools these days? any steroid injection?

ViCoX
02-07-2009, 05:57 PM
How's the curve based modelling tools these days? any steroid injection?
Nothing new in that area, I think.

tjnyc
02-07-2009, 06:08 PM
I strongly dislike the list view as a means of dealing with shader construction.

Totally agree! I am not sure why they took this approach, the list view is just simply counter-productive and DOES get complicate even with small projects. And I concur with the instability with Modo, it is the one thing that just gives me headaches about Modo. However, It is a very good program and I find it more and more a tool I turn to for my work. I just hope that even with the great new features, that they made it a top priority to stamp out the instability of the program. With that being said, I look forward to 401 and best wishes to the Luxology team for their hard work and dedication!

Cheers,

P_T
02-07-2009, 06:31 PM
Nothing new in that area, I think.That's a little disappointing. Their root is Modelling and I thought they would try to master that first instead of trying to be jack of all trades.

Novakog
02-07-2009, 07:15 PM
That image is about replicators though, not about hair, does that mean hair and replicators share the same technology? Thanks for the reply, this is becoming interesting :)

As far as I know, fur/hair is a specialized case of replicators.

DizzyJ
02-07-2009, 08:32 PM
That's a little disappointing. Their root is Modelling and I thought they would try to master that first instead of trying to be jack of all trades.

That's part of my love-hate with Modo. I wish 301 would have skipped the timeline and bolstered curve support and stability, and a node-based shading workflow. I suppose that the new features drive buyers more than the incomplete features drive them away, though.

Strang
02-08-2009, 03:10 AM
it seems the replicators are very similar to particle instances. here are a few reasons...

the technique...

you have an instance source ( prototype ) that you distribute across a surface using a density parameter. you can modulate the distribution by a weight map and then randomize the transforms on the surface. this technique smells like particles...

quotes from 2/6/2009 modcast by Greg Leuenberger...

'...the particle ceiling count...'
'...you have a point cloud basically that these replicators are being stuck to...'
'...replicated that leaf to the point cloud...'
'...particle id gradient input...'

and lastly because i can do this now with ICE... and i bet houdini can and pflow, TP, etc etc. so maybe modo will be getting a particle system in the not to distant future.

congrats to luxology! i will be tuning in on 2/12

steven

cheebamonkey
02-08-2009, 06:08 PM
That's a little disappointing. Their root is Modelling and I thought they would try to master that first instead of trying to be jack of all trades.

probably trying to play catch up with some of the other apps out there.

ubermensch76
02-08-2009, 07:54 PM
Brad Peebler and co know their business better than any of us here but being the best modeling app out there bar non would be a good thing to aim for.

But as I said earlier they know their business better than any of us.
There are a few more slots left to fill in that preview page of theirs. Maybe they have an ace up their sleeve.

DennisVR
02-08-2009, 09:20 PM
In the latest modcast they mention that there will be modeling changes in 401 aswell. Remains to be seen to what extent.

Sbowling
02-10-2009, 06:50 AM
Really? For me, nothing brings back memories of Truespace 4 like volumetric lighting. Is that really worth saying, 'wow' over? Is fur, or object instancing? I guess not every app has those, but... I feel like they've been standard in most large apps for a long time now. Obviously there's more to come in the reveal but... this feels more like Modo catchup than anything wow worthy.

I also found it less than impressive, character animation is still missing too. That particle thing looks terrible to me the way the spheres pop in. In fact, it doesn't even look like particles, it looks more like ther are just animatin geometry on the points of another mesh with a witght map or texture. Jut another one of the lightwave spinoffs playing catch-up with the big boys.

mortenolesen
02-10-2009, 07:10 AM
Try seeing the video of the rhino at the bottom of the replicators page, with realtime rendering of billions of polys and GI. Amazing stuff.
http://www.luxology.com/modo/401.replicators/

P_T
02-10-2009, 05:24 PM
I'm trying to think of how Modo can fit in a pipeline and to be honest, apart from the modelling, I don't see how any of the other stuff can be useful.

Robust renderer? that's great but then there's Renderman, Vray, Mental Ray, Maxwell, etc. etc. Fur? most if not all of the DCC apps that support the above renderers already have Fur as well and more importantly, they also have proper dynamics/animation tools. Cloth, which is arguable more useful in a modelling toolset than Fur isn't even available yet.

As good as Modo might be, I just don't think it's worth getting until all the modules are complete and it's transformed into Lightwave MkII. If you're just looking for modelling tools, Silo3D seems to be the better choice.

DizzyJ
02-10-2009, 06:23 PM
Those tools aren't for production houses with developed pipelines, at least IMO. They're for small/individual users who want to expand their capabilities. While I wouldn't be likely to animate anything in Modo, since I have Maya, I can see how an ID or arch viz firm might use them for simple fly throughs, mechanical motion illustrations, etc. The examples they provide for instancing shows a great use for biomedical illustrators, as well. So I don't doubt the demand in the larger market.

For game and entertainment, I suspect the plan is to add features piece-wise until they have a full-featured application to compete with the other guys. Getting in-house with the modelling capabilities probably will make it easier to get some seats licencesed for other uses once they are robust enough to be considered a viable option. But they've got to get either a node-view or another production-ready alternative to the stack/layer view they have now before I see that happening.

leuey
02-11-2009, 12:45 AM
That's ridiculous. Modo has already found permanent positions at Pixar, ILM, Digiatal Domain and about every Ad Agency on the planet - it's already established itself as being able to 'play' as evidenced by the artists at these places showing a *preference* for modo.

What modo has done is distiguish itself from the other major apps...is it as flexible as houdini? No. Can it do character animation like XSI? No...but who cares? It can arguably model better than both with SDS, it can also paint, sculpt and UV better than any of those apps. It has found a niche for itself by being VERY good at what it does. The renderer can stand it's ground with stand-alone renders that cost more than the entire modo package. And it's been developing much faster.

What it's not doing is trying to 'play catch up with the big-boys' - which is obviously what LW is doing, there's nothing that was shown in the core demo that couldn't have been done with Maya 1.0 or Max 1.0....From what I've seen LW is trying to catch up....and maybe they will - but they certainly are *not* distinguishing themselves.

-Greg

Jut another one of the lightwave spinoffs playing catch-up with the big boys.

P_T
02-11-2009, 04:07 AM
The thing is, if Luxo made Modo to be modular, why not sell and price it as such?

KristopherLee
02-11-2009, 04:13 AM
The one beautiful thing I can say about Modo is the ability to do all the work in the perspective view. Sure its possible in Maya (that I use) but Modo is absolutely the best when it comes to not having to switch viewports and still be able to get the model correct.

FreakWizz
02-11-2009, 08:40 AM
That's ridiculous. Modo has already found permanent positions at Pixar, ILM, Digiatal Domain and about every Ad Agency on the planet - it's already established itself as being able to 'play' as evidenced by the artists at these places showing a *preference* for modo.

Gee, Modo used at Mac hotbed @ Pixar....... Who would of guessed?

What modo has done is distiguish itself from the other major apps...is it as flexible as houdini? No. Can it do character animation like XSI? No...but who cares? It can arguably model better than both with SDS, it can also paint, sculpt and UV better than any of those apps. It has found a niche for itself by being VERY good at what it does. The renderer can stand it's ground with stand-alone renders that cost more than the entire modo package. And it's been developing much faster.

As a modeler it's okay, It didn't nail enough of what it needed to to become the best Modeler. Silo and the like are still much preferred from myself. Painting is sub-par and cannot match 3DCoat (much cheaper) or Bodypaint (much better). Sculpting is a joke and 30x was a waste because of it. Other applications like 3DCoat offered WAAAY more tools, and abilities for WAAY less money, and just crap all over it in every aspect of paint/sculpt. Modo itself cannot handle half of the actual polygon counts that it's predecessor LW can.

The Modo renderer while nice, doesn't compete with LW, MR, PRMan, at the moment it's sparse and incomplete in many areas, and as for developing much faster, Modo is the biggest dissapointment in this area than any other... NT and LW have managed to rebuild the LW CORE in 2 years, Modo haven't even got the best Modeler in many years of development. It's painfully slow, No SDK so people can fill the gaps Luxology cannot fill.
And unlike other companies like NT who give constant free updates, Luxology have proven to not even fix the amazing amount of bugs and stability issues in 30x, and instead insist on making people upgrade to possibly have a less buggy experience in 40x, which in my book is horrendous support/design.... And the exact trick that forced me to upgrade from 203.

What it's not doing is trying to 'play catch up with the big-boys' - which is obviously what LW is doing, there's nothing that was shown in the core demo that couldn't have been done with Maya 1.0 or Max 1.0....From what I've seen LW is trying to catch up....and maybe they will - but they certainly are *not* distinguishing themselves.

-Greg

NT have distiungishd themselves alright, the CORE announcement was even a surprise to Luxology because they initially failed to bring all of what CORE announced to LW, and have so far failed with Modo. As far as i can tell the new LW development team shows where the problems with LW's development previously were/are all along, and that's with the previous development team. (Now Luxology) Currently they are struggling to get a decent SDK or bug fixes on Modo, No Linux version or 64bit version..... What year are these people living in! Pphhhh!

Nexus promised us easier path to Linux, or an easier path to 64bit.... NT beat them to both using their old architecture, that sureley shows Lux, need to do way better than what they have all by itself.

DizzyJ
02-11-2009, 02:29 PM
Gee, Modo used at Mac hotbed @ Pixar....... Who would of guessed?

I suppose we should thank you for putting up front that you're going to be in full flamewar mode. But the last time I looked, Pixar makes some of the better 3D animated films, so if they use Amigas from 1988, who cares? It's certainly doesn't take anything away from Luxology and modo that Pixar uses them. I'd say it's a decent bragging point.

As to the rest of your rant, when did Modo's chief competitor become Lightwave? Modo remains primarily a modeler. It's used in a lot of markets, so looking at it from an entertainment market perspective is missing the point of the non-modeling features. The renderer isn't there to compete with mental ray, REYES renders, etc. It's there for people without pipelines to quickly render out their work without buying another program.

Eventually, Modo might do enough that it's targeting the same market as Lightwave, but right now, it's not. Compare it to Silo, if you must, but not Lightwave, C4D, Maya, Houdini, etc.

visionmaster2
02-11-2009, 02:39 PM
When i saw works, like those of Jacques Defontaine, specially this one : http://www.tkio.net/Content/Artworks/SLJ_F.html

i just can say that modo must be an amazing soft.

ThirdEye
02-11-2009, 02:44 PM
When i saw works, like those of Jacques Defontaine, specially this one : http://www.tkio.net/Content/Artworks/SLJ_F.html

i just can say that modo must be an amazing soft.

Modo is a great app for sure, but i think that Jacques could produce photorealistic stuff even in Bryce ;)

visionmaster2
02-11-2009, 02:48 PM
:applause::applause::applause:











... .. .

FreakWizz
02-11-2009, 08:38 PM
I suppose we should thank you for putting up front that you're going to be in full flamewar mode. But the last time I looked, Pixar makes some of the better 3D animated films, so if they use Amigas from 1988, who cares? It's certainly doesn't take anything away from Luxology and modo that Pixar uses them. I'd say it's a decent bragging point.


Feel free not to reply back if your so concerned about a flamewar, my post was to Greg a Modo beta tester (he managed to forget that bit) making inaccurate claims about Modo and LW.

Pixar is mainly a Mac outfit, Steve Jobs being an owner, so the fact that Pixar are into Luxology who are are heavily into Mac, is not exactly a surprise and could be just as much about hardware and pricing than it can about Modo's abilties. So yes some of the shine does rub off on things like that.

Modo is not just a Modeler, they haven't added any Modelling tools in the last version, and this version does much more on the renderer etc.. Just because it sucks at everything except Modelling, doesn't mean it isn't trying to compete with the others... Model, Sculpt, Paint, Render, Animate is the Modo slogan..... Not "Model"

leuey
02-11-2009, 09:25 PM
Freakwizz, you strike me as yet another bitter LW user who has a chip on his shoulder. Oh well.....the previous poster is correct, modo is not direct competition for complete packages at this point - but it certainly is an all in one tool for several markets and a much used (and lauded) pipeline tool for many others. I don't think I said one thing that was inaccurate about modo or LW - please point to the quote.

There is not another tool on the market that can model, render, UV, bake, preview render, paint and sculpt better than modo in one package...not one. There's a lot of tools that can beat it at ONE thing (mudbox) but don't even offer the other features, or offer features modo doesn't have yet (dynamics, CA). And no, I don't think Max+Mudbox+VRAY (you need all three to have the same features and create the same kinds of stills being done in the CGAM industries) are competing for the same dollar as one little $895 app

But feel free to rant at this post too.

-G

Lone Deranger
02-11-2009, 11:25 PM
Didn't Steve Jobs sell Pixar to Disney a few years ago and went from Pixar chairman and CEO to Disney board member?

Anyway... out of interest, what exactly is modo's role at Pixar? To what extend is it used there? I would be surprised if it was their primary modelling package. More likely it's the choice of a few "rebel" artists there...?

Just curious.

ThE_JacO
02-12-2009, 12:05 AM
Pixar is mainly a Mac outfit, Steve Jobs being an owner, so the fact that Pixar are into Luxology who are are heavily into Mac, is not exactly a surprise and could be just as much about hardware and pricing than it can about Modo's abilties. So yes some of the shine does rub off on things like that.
Sorry, on what grounds do you have that? And what do you mean with "mainly"?

I don't know what the hardware is these days, might well be becoming mac pros for workstations since they are intel and can run linux, but the OS platform for most stuff wasn't mac-osX last time I checked.
The farm, given OS, HW and business model deficiencies on clustering on Apple's side is on Linux, and nobody in Pixar or Apple has ever seemed concerned admitting to it.

AFAIK for the longest time they've been actually running HP or dell for HW actually.
Workstations last time I heard about it were running on Linux, and a lot of people I've met coming from Pixar have always said there's a fairly strong anti-Apple sentiment in some circles there.
Of course there would be mactels and a handful of windows boxes around available, that's the case in every mid sized and up shop around, but that doesn't make them "mainly" an Apple outfit.

Would be cool if some Pixarite could confirm or deny though, since you seem so convinced...
Or are you making assumptions because you think Jobs would force osX on anybody who has some degree of connection with his ventures?
The renderer isn't there to compete with mental ray, REYES renders, etc. It's there for people without pipelines to quickly render out their work without buying another program.
I was under the impression modo's engine was modelled around REYES in first place...

Novakog
02-12-2009, 12:21 AM
I'm gonna stay out of most of this... but a few logistical questions:

@ The_JacO, modo's renderer is mainly a raytracer, not a Reyes renderer.

@ Lone Deranger, modo is used as a modeler by some Pixar artists. Jason Bickerstaff and Rich Hurrey in particular use it (for instance, Eve in Wall-E was modeled in modo). They talked with Brad Peebler about it on a "modcast" a little while ago here (http://www.luxology.com/modcast/audio.aspx?id=49). EDIT: Sorry, didn't answer your question exactly. I'm under the impression that most modelers there use Maya, but Jason and Rich are two of their most prominent hard-surface modelers (as I said, they did Eve), so they're not exactly "rebel artists".

ThE_JacO
02-12-2009, 12:56 AM
@ The_JacO, modo's renderer is mainly a raytracer, not a Reyes renderer.
Don't know where I had picked up the notion, but I must have remembered wrongly. I stand corrected, and thanks for pitching in :)

Lone Deranger
02-12-2009, 01:54 AM
Thanks for the info Novakog! :thumbsup:

edit: oh... and I meant rebel as in reference to ILM's famous "Rebel-Unit". So it wasn't meant negatively in any way... on the contrary rather. Apologies if that's how it came across. :)

leuey
02-12-2009, 02:20 AM
modo's renderer uses some of the same concepts like shading rate (displacement rate...subD rate...) - and there's been some technology sharing between the companies, so I can see where the confusion could come in.

also, Freakwhizzes' (sp?) 'point' about Pixar's relationship with Apple having something to do with modo use at the company is a out of the blue and rather meaningless. My point was simply that modo is being used at the highest levels (at numerous companies).....as opposed to 'just another spinoff trying to play catch up....'

Anyway, yeah...

-Greg

Don't know where I had picked up the notion, but I must have remembered wrongly. I stand corrected, and thanks for pitching in :)

DizzyJ
02-12-2009, 02:59 AM
I was under the impression modo's engine was modelled around REYES in first place...

I assume it's based on REYES, too, although they talk about it in raycasting terms (probably for marketing reasons: people want their physically-based renderflows). But I'd be amazed to learn it was being used for any entertainment animation rendering. Partly because the animation tools in modo would make for a messy translation, but partly because it's missing key production shaders (like a surface shader: please, anybody, correct me if I'm wrong) and other workflow tools that you find in a stand-alone package like 3delight or even application hosted mental ray.

Is there a way to write new shaders for Modo?

Edit: Posted while the guys with the real answers were posting. Doh! The similar terminology is what made me think it was partially based on REYES, too.

ThirdEye
02-12-2009, 05:40 PM
Question about Replicators: can i deform or edit or do whatever i want to a Replicator or do i have to do that to the source object? Can i assign a Replicator a different material than the source object? Thanks to anyone who can enlighten me about this.

Magnus3D
02-12-2009, 06:27 PM
The Luxology team just released more juicy news for us all :) enjoy!

http://www.luxology.com/modo/401.light.and.shadow/

/ Magnus

mr_carl
02-12-2009, 07:13 PM
and now we have to wait another 8 days :cry:

leuey
02-12-2009, 07:44 PM
Replicators will respect any modeling, morph (ani) or mdd changes to the sources geometry...you can even cut and paste in new sources (cut out a pine tree and paste in a birch tree). You can isolate replicator instance by their particle ID in the shader tree for individual texturing....but some more work needs to be done in that area I think (it's hard to pick an exact one right now....I'll put in a feature request).

You can't access an individual replicator's geometry since it's just a rendertime instance....you can animated or defrom the point cloud or surface of the object they rest on and they will go along for the ride (including sub-pixel displacement)

-Greg

Question about Replicators: can i deform or edit or do whatever i want to a Replicator or do i have to do that to the source object? Can i assign a Replicator a different material than the source object? Thanks to anyone who can enlighten me about this.

Strang
02-12-2009, 07:52 PM
and now we have to wait another 8 days :cry:

i know, long wait for so little... just let it all out

ThirdEye
02-12-2009, 08:16 PM
Replicators will respect any modeling, morph (ani) or mdd changes to the sources geometry...you can even cut and paste in new sources (cut out a pine tree and paste in a birch tree). You can isolate replicator instance by their particle ID in the shader tree for individual texturing....but some more work needs to be done in that area I think (it's hard to pick an exact one right now....I'll put in a feature request).

You can't access an individual replicator's geometry since it's just a rendertime instance....you can animated or defrom the point cloud or surface of the object they rest on and they will go along for the ride (including sub-pixel displacement)

-Greg

Thank you Greg. :)

P_T
02-13-2009, 01:21 PM
The Luxology team just released more juicy news for us all :) enjoy!

http://www.luxology.com/modo/401.light.and.shadow/

/ MagnusThose new features look very nice indeed but as mentioned before, they're not exactly new technology, so the question is, how easy are they to access and applied in a shader/render? Are the settings logical or arcane in nature?

Novakog
02-13-2009, 10:04 PM
Those new features look very nice indeed but as mentioned before, they're not exactly new technology, so the question is, how easy are they to access and applied in a shader/render? Are the settings logical or arcane in nature?

In my opinion, the render features are incredibly easy to setup, much easier than in all the other software I've used, and the anisotropy direction effect is textured in the exact same way as XSI: http://www.xsi-blog.com/archives/197.

P_T
02-14-2009, 03:16 PM
In my opinion, the render features are incredibly easy to setup, much easier than in all the other software I've used, and the anisotropy direction effect is textured in the exact same way as XSI: http://www.xsi-blog.com/archives/197.Thanks for that. The reason I ask is that sometime in other renderer you have to tweak some setting that you thought has nothing to do with what you're trying to do. In other word, you have to know the renderer inside out before you can make the renderer works efficiently. This is fine if there's a good documentation but most of the time you need an IT degree to understand it.

ngrava
02-15-2009, 07:29 AM
Thanks for that. The reason I ask is that sometime in other renderer you have to tweak some setting that you thought has nothing to do with what you're trying to do. In other word, you have to know the renderer inside out before you can make the renderer works efficiently. This is fine if there's a good documentation but most of the time you need an IT degree to understand it.

Yeah, I modo is about 90% slick and 10% huh? For instance, in order to get SSS you just turn it on and pick a sub dermal color. Turn up the effect and you get more. Basically it's the easiest SSS setup that I've seen and really amazing looking. However, Glossy reflections is kind of weird. There is a checkbox just under the reflection spinner for Blurry reflection. However, while most 3D programs have a "Glossiness" setting just under that, the setting that controls it is called Roughness and it's halfway up the panel just under the Specular amount setting. Now, it makes sense once you think about it for a second; if a surface is rough then the reflections will be more defused and thus, look glossy. But, It would just be easer if the setting was related to reflection and not the fake specular effect in the first place. Another issue is with Fresnel reflections which don't work as I would expect them to.

However, I have to say that I use Vray in Max at work just about every day and I still think Modo's renderer is really, really nice! Far better then Metal Ray and much closer to Vray as a competitor.

todd4cgi
02-19-2009, 08:24 PM
I'm sold! Of course, I already own Modo 302, but nonetheless I am still impressed with what's to come. I can't wait to see what they release in tomorrow's announcement.

Cheers.

mr_carl
02-20-2009, 10:55 PM
More updates

http://www.luxology.com/modo/401.preview.and.final.rendering/

Faster rendering is never wrong :beer:

DennisVR
02-20-2009, 11:06 PM
preview speed is pretty amazing :D

Swizzle
02-20-2009, 11:06 PM
Blurry refraction is something I've been wanting for a while. Good stuff.

samartin
02-21-2009, 08:46 AM
This was shown in the modcast section of lux's site, another preview vid with interaction :-

http://video.luxology.com/modo/401/video/preview401_fast.mp4

Nemoid
02-21-2009, 02:15 PM
I agree regarding Modo position wiithin the market now, but don't agree about Lw.

CORE seems to play catch up just because the aim is to build up a genaral package, but this is actually inevitable.
Luxology choosed another strategy, the one make Modo become a general app only at a certain point (601? 701? who knows?).

These are 2 ways to do the exact same thing. :)

CORE will distinguish itself as well as Lw is distinguishable from every other app in the market.

The hope is CORE will be distinguished for being better and not being worse, differently from what happened with Lw which was left behind wasn't rewritten at the right time (6.0) and for that exact reason became naturally old. :)

That's ridiculous. Modo has already found permanent positions at Pixar, ILM, Digiatal Domain and about every Ad Agency on the planet - it's already established itself as being able to 'play' as evidenced by the artists at these places showing a *preference* for modo.

What modo has done is distiguish itself from the other major apps...is it as flexible as houdini? No. Can it do character animation like XSI? No...but who cares? It can arguably model better than both with SDS, it can also paint, sculpt and UV better than any of those apps. It has found a niche for itself by being VERY good at what it does. The renderer can stand it's ground with stand-alone renders that cost more than the entire modo package. And it's been developing much faster.

What it's not doing is trying to 'play catch up with the big-boys' - which is obviously what LW is doing, there's nothing that was shown in the core demo that couldn't have been done with Maya 1.0 or Max 1.0....From what I've seen LW is trying to catch up....and maybe they will - but they certainly are *not* distinguishing themselves.

-Greg

Kabab
05-03-2009, 02:36 PM
There is not another tool on the market that can model, render, UV, bake, preview render, paint and sculpt better than modo in one package...not one. There's a lot of tools that can beat it at ONE thing (mudbox) but don't even offer the other features, or offer features modo doesn't have yet (dynamics, CA). And no, I don't think Max+Mudbox+VRAY (you need all three to have the same features and create the same kinds of stills being done in the CGAM industries) are competing for the same dollar as one little $895 app..
You know this is quiet an interesting point, adsk have kinda painted themselves into a corner they will never have a single tool that does everything because they live on acquisitions where as modo is lined up to do this. Honestly who wants to export their shit into a bunch of various app's for a specific procedure.

It's going to take some time but i think modo is in the #1 postion to have a completely intergrated app eventually.

Also something that happend a while ago which is very interesting is http://www.luxology.com/pv360/ which basically means luxology is going to get lots of $$$$ to develop their rendering technology over the years.

R10k
05-03-2009, 02:58 PM
Honestly who wants to export their shit into a bunch of various app's for a specific procedure.

For goodness sakes, can someone please shoot the idea of the one be-all and end-all uber app in the head? It will never see the light of day- end of story. The use of multiple apps and pipelines is part of 3D, because people have different tastes in software and workflows, and every application has its strengths and weaknesses. Plus, apps are consistently one-upping each other every year. No app will ever be perfect during its development for every situation an artist might encounter.

Modo can have all the fancy features and bits and pieces in the world, and someone somewhere will still be cranking out awesome renders in Truespace or POVRay, with a ton of other apps tacked on for UVing and the like, simply because they feel like it. The 'one killer app' idea is stupid.

Thankyou, rant over.

Kabab
05-03-2009, 03:10 PM
For goodness sakes, can someone please shoot the idea of the one be-all and end-all uber app in the head?

Why?

Why do you have to do your base model in one software, your sculpting in another, painting in another etc etc why???

I can accept that an app that has all these things may not be the absolute best in class at the process but it all being integrated i think outweighs that.

R10k
05-03-2009, 03:40 PM
Why?

I just said why.

Why do you have to do your base model in one software, your sculpting in another, painting in another etc etc why???

The point isn't that you have to do anything- it's that the idea of one super application is a silly one... for the reasons just mentioned.

I can accept that an app that has all these things may not be the absolute best in class at the process but it all being integrated i think outweighs that.

There is no such thing as 'the best in its class'. As for having everything integrated, if that works for you, great. But, there's no need to make it sound as if a company which has a number of similar applications is a dumb one, because it's not.

DieMachinist
05-03-2009, 04:06 PM
But, there's no need to make it sound as if a company which has a number of similar applications is a dumb one, because it's not.

I see where you are coming from but what is smart in having three exactly same apps (Max, Maya, XSI) under Autodesk from a user point of view? When I read the advertising material for the three apps my head hurts.

Edit- I think I understood your post wrongly so ignore my post if that was the case :beer:

DizzyJ
05-03-2009, 04:10 PM
I went to a mental ray conference this week, not realizing it was going to be focused on arch/design viz (which I don't do). I use Maya (and Modo) and have never had any desire to learn Max. But seeing the arch/design viz stuff, I realized that as full-featured as Maya is, if I wanted to do arch viz, I'd switch to Max. I also learned that Max only very recently gained a feature I would consider vital to entertainment work (nodal shader construction).

The 3D market is hugely segmented, with different segments having very little overlap in terms of need. No single applications is going to be able to fulfill all the needs of everybody, even within the big bucket categories. That's why people with "do it all" programs like Max and Maya still buy programs like Modo, which duplicate functionality within their programs, but add new feature/workflows they like.

R10k
05-03-2009, 04:23 PM
Edit- I think I understood your post wrongly so ignore my post if that was the case

Sounds like a good question to me!

I can't say if what Autodesk have done in buying so many similar apps is smart, but even though each of the apps share similar features, each one is different, and the way they work (and feel) will suit different artists. Max is an awesome tool, but I simply don't like using it. But, I love XSI.

Although it'd be great to have one uber Autodesk app (I think!) with all of the best features currently split across three apps, there's no guarentee everyone would roll with it anyway, for this very reason.

In short- sometimes it's just helpful having three different hammers in your toolbox :)

R10k
05-03-2009, 04:27 PM
That's why people with "do it all" programs like Max and Maya still buy programs like Modo, which duplicate functionality within their programs, but add new feature/workflows they like.

Exactly. Sometimes also, those duplicate functions can come in handy for certain jobs. Where one app fails (which can happen for numerous reasons) another app is there as backup.

One of the best things in 3D is flexability, and different tools can assist in that respect.

todd4cgi
05-03-2009, 04:40 PM
While I agree that there may never be a super-über 3D app, I think Modo comes as close to the top as possible. Including the new features in 401, I find no comparable modeling tools in Max, Maya, XSI, etc. Workflow aside I've never had an easier time modeling than I have in Modo. It's texture painting tools even rival Bodypaint, IMHO. And don't get me started on it's renderer. Please. I too love XSI. Maya is too tied down to drop down menus. An Autodesk rep once told me that the coding for Max was too deep to accomodate a major interface overhaul. Yet Max 2010 looks like it can. Clearly Autodesk sees it's flagship app in jeopardy if it's willing to go to such lengths.
This thread is about Modo 401. And I have to say that Modo has made 3D fun for me - again. I hope the other 3D apps keep going strong. Without healthy competition, I can't expect to see many changes in Modo. Long live 3D!

EDIT:
Don't get me wrong. If I need to animate a character I'll definitely turn to Maya or XSI. Until Modo has CA tools. I'll gladly cross over. But as of today, and including 401, I can't think of any other app that suits my needs as well.

DieMachinist
05-03-2009, 04:43 PM
In short- sometimes it's just helpful having three different hammers in your toolbox :)

Even when they are same hammers? :D

http://toolmonger.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/Hammers.jpg

I am just getting tired of knowing which hammer to use when :applause:Tools are expensive as well.

http://www.tanseygroup.com/Busy%20Beaver%20Pics/Edgewood%20Town%20Center/Section%203%20Hammers%20Edgewood%20BB.jpg

leuey
05-03-2009, 09:25 PM
R10K, the point isn't about having a tool that's 'best in class' in all categories..it's about a tool that's complete enough in enough categories to get the job done...and if it's all in one app it's almost always faster. People generally jump around between apps because the HAVE to, not because they want to (hobbyists excluded)...I still HAVE to do major deformation animation in Maya and mdd it into modo..but believe me, as soon as modo can do it (even if it's not as deep as Maya) I will find a way to stay in modo.

Likewise...I'm very impressed by mudbox and will probably buy it because there's one or two projects a year where modo's sculpting just isn't good enough. But I certainly don't WANT to do that..I just have to and modo's sculpting is good enough in the other 5 or 6 projects a year I need that feature.

That's what people are talking about...surely you 'get' that. Nobody is looking for a all-in-wonder best in class in every category app. People want a 'good enough' in every category..and right now that's probably XSI..but modo is up and coming.

-Greg

DizzyJ
05-03-2009, 10:30 PM
R10K, the point isn't about having a tool that's 'best in class' in all categories..it's about a tool that's complete enough in enough categories to get the job done...and if it's all in one app it's almost always faster. People generally jump around between apps because the HAVE to, not because they want to

If that were true, you wouldn't use Modo, because—if you learn it well enough—you can do anything in Maya you can do in Modo—particularly in terms of rendering and animation. But you use Modo because you like the workflow better than in Maya (at least I assume so from your post). Maya and Max have very deep toolsets that allow you to do just about anything that is possible with 3D software. Their tools are (largely) well-implemented and production-proven. But that doesn't mean that for some users, there aren't better tools for specific aspects of their workflow. Professionals will usually pick whatever tool gets them the results fastest. Specialized software generally does that better than all-around software. If it doesn't, it won't sell enough to support it's development.

leuey
05-03-2009, 10:50 PM
well, yeah...I didn't articulate that very well. Obviously speed and quality matter... My (not very well worded) point was more about the compromise of not dealing with specialty programs if your main app can get the job done 'good enough'. I switched over from maya (which I had used since version 3) to a largly modo based workflow..so I suppose I'm an example of what you are talking about. I don't think specialty software lets you accomplish something faster than keeping everything in one app unless you're part of a really segmented pipeline (for a small studio or freelancer I think it's absolutely faster to keep things in one app...for a place like ILM or Sony where the workflow is segmented it's not really an issue).

But there's always exceptions so I'm sure someone will argue with me about that. I have to say I roll my eyes a bit when I see an image that was 'modeled in modo, sculpted in zbrush, painted in mudbox, animated in maya, rendered in max and composited in after fx and shake...' - that person was obviously not on a deadline.


-Greg

DizzyJ
05-03-2009, 11:14 PM
I think there are two inarguable points:

1) to succeed as an "animation package" you need to have a broad toolset. If you don't have a broad toolset, you're a specialty application and occupy a smaller niche. I think SideFX's focus on making it easier to do CA and modeling in Houdini is a good case-in-point. They seem to be working hard to move from being the "high-end dynamics package" to becoming a real rival for Max and Maya.

2) it's way premature to talk about Modo being an animation package. 401 won't have real CA tools and dynamics seems far away. For certain areas of the 3D market, Modo a great fit. I imagine viz artists don't need much more than what 301 offers. With the revealed features, 401 should be a viz powerhouse. But in the games, entertainment and post markets, I don't see anybody at Autodesk or Maxon losing sleep over 401... or even anticipating 501 with dread.

I give Luxology a lot of credit for adding features in the order they have. The features Modo doesn't have are used by a much smaller niche of the market than the features they do have. 401 shows more of their focus on markets they can win big in, rather than trying to reach for markets where they'll face stiff competition and need a huge investment in new technologies. That tells me that they're a company to watch out for.

leuey
05-03-2009, 11:39 PM
I think that's a very insightful post. I've noticed SideFX making that effort as well and you're correct about modo's progression in terms of features. I don't know if autodesk will ever lose sleep about modo in the char. ani market (or any other app for that matter..) and I'm not sure they'll lose sleep over modo or any other dcc app in general. The dcc market is extemely small....anyway, we're on a tangent.


-Greg

Kabab
05-04-2009, 03:18 AM
2) it's way premature to talk about Modo being an animation package. 401 won't have real CA tools and dynamics seems far away. For certain areas of the 3D market, Modo a great fit. I imagine viz artists don't need much more than what 301 offers. With the revealed features, 401 should be a viz powerhouse. But in the games, entertainment and post markets, I don't see anybody at Autodesk or Maxon losing sleep over 401... or even anticipating 501 with dread.I dunno if they can get their animation stuff together along with what sounds like a very strong collada implementation modo could make some serious inroads into games.

ViCoX
05-04-2009, 08:56 AM
New video from Richard Hurrey link (http://www.simpleblack.com/Modo401_RichReRailing_01.mov)
It shows tad more complicated "rigging", neat stuff.

Nemoid
05-04-2009, 09:26 PM
Well the concept of an uber app making all things for 3D, is a bit utopic, but actually its possible to do alot within a single app, like Maya yet.

The main thing you can notice, is that making 3D is actually complex : You need the tools to model hard surface and organics, then surface, UV, paint, rig , animate, render and more... and actually most big apps like Maya allow to do quite all of this.

Problem is that apps like Maya have these tools, but without programming and MEL, workflow out of the box is often crap, requires too many passages or its too deep when you have to make simple stuff.

Instead, apps like Modo, and even Lightwave in many aspects, try to offer good tools out of the box, for a speedy workflow, and this is very good, especially for generalists.

In the case of Lightwave, the problem is that the structure of the app is old fashioned and doesn't allow for great flexibility/programmability.(that's why they are making CORE now, btw)Also, no great deepness in some areas, half made implementations and other problems really got Lw behind compared to other apps.


Modo, on its side, shares the same Lw philosophy. good enough tools to make good works.and good workflows i many cases. Is there room for improvements? sure, and alot, but's actually quite good however.
Also, technology advances so that now you can for example have good Uv tools that save you great time compared to old fashioned workflows, and this can be valid for many areas.

BTW, What would be great for the future in Modo, would be to actually add huge levels of deepness and programmability to the app, allowing people to go ahead, just like they do with Maya,and also maybe use the app as a solid base for a pipeline.

About other areas like sculpting, this actually depends from the technology you adopt. It's clear that specialized apps, like Zbrush, Mudbox, and upcoming 3D coat are way more powerful than Modo, or Silo in that field now. Zbrush in particular uses its own pixol based method, and in fact its not a true 3d app. At the end , all 3 apps are specialized into sculpting/painting they do retopology, but offer no room for traditional modelling tools.

However, and even if the technology adopted by Lux isn't that optimized now, this doesnìt mean one day they could be able to enhance it greatly.

so, in time Modo could end to be quite a good weapon for generalists and maybe more.

Then, there will always be specialized apps, doing wonders, i dont think this will change that soon.

CGTalk Moderation
05-04-2009, 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.