If you use modo for just rendering, what modeler are you using?

Become a member of the CGSociety

Connect, Share, and Learn with our Large Growing CG Art Community. It's Free!

THREAD CLOSED
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  09 September 2012
If you use modo for just rendering, what modeler are you using?

I've bought modo over the years (201, 301, 302?, 401, and 501). But I end up using it for just rendering. So when 601 was announced, the features looked cool and all. But I see myself just using the renderer still if I did buy it.

Brad asked a group of modo users, during a demo of 601, if they are modeling in modo or if they just use it for rendering. I was surprised he asked the question. And I was surprised that a lot of modo users there were like me. Brad obviously knew how his software was being used by customers.

If you use modo for just rendering, what modeler are you using?
 
  09 September 2012
Dear ShawnDriscoll,
i use modo 601 for modelling every day.
I prefer it when I need some "geometrical modelling". The other tools is zbrush.
But I think modo is a quite good poligona modelling.

Bye bye,
flavio
 
  09 September 2012
Interesting, I thought the question would be the other way around - who is using modo for modeling and not rendering? I say that because I hear a lot of people comment about doing just that on their forums. It seems a lot of people struggle with their camera implementation and the shadertree. It started out as a modeler only to boot.
 
  09 September 2012
A lot of people use modo for texturing and rendering apparently. Rendering especially because of its speed compared to other rendering software. Yes, years ago modo could only model stuff. I started using modo when it had rendering features.

Last edited by ShawnDriscoll : 09 September 2012 at 05:27 AM.
 
  09 September 2012
I use Modo mostly for rendering, although I've been porting over some of my rigs and I've recently been transferring some things I learned from Mudbox over to Modo for sculpting. (Don't have Mudbox at home.)

I model everything in Blender regardless of the target software. Modo, C4D, Maya, Lightwave, Houdini, and dedicated modelers-- none of them work as well for me for modeling as Blender. But for rendering, especially for lighting, Modo is an amazing tool.
__________________
mokushi kushimo
shimoku kumoshi
moshiku shikumo
 
  09 September 2012
My preference is modeling in modo, though I do some modeling in Max, Maya and a little in Blender (still learning that one). But modo's renderer is simply awesome. It always makes me shake my head: Lately there's been tons of hype and development over real time rendering in Max and possibly coming to Maya. It's this big thing. But modo has had it for years. And LW had it for years before modo (through the FPrime plugin).

At work I usually render in Max/Maya with mr. At home anything is done with modo.
 
  09 September 2012
Even TrueSpace 7.6 had real-time rendering. Anything is possible if you have the GPU RAM for it. DirectX and other graphic platforms have come a long way in doing this.
 
  09 September 2012
Originally Posted by ShawnDriscoll: Even TrueSpace 7.6 had real-time rendering. Anything is possible if you have the GPU RAM for it. DirectX and other graphic platforms have come a long way in doing this.


Nice. I had no idea TrueSpace could do that. Is it a pretty good, full-service package? (modeling, shading, animation, etc). How's the renderer?
 
  09 September 2012
Originally Posted by bellsoffreedom: Nice. I had no idea TrueSpace could do that. Is it a pretty good, full-service package? (modeling, shading, animation, etc). How's the renderer?


Isn't truespace free these days??
 
  09 September 2012
Originally Posted by bellsoffreedom: I had no idea TrueSpace could do that. Is it a pretty good, full-service package? (modeling, shading, animation, etc). How's the renderer?


It was about 5 years ago. Its renderer is about as good as Bryce 6's rendering quality.


Originally Posted by musashidan: Isn't truespace free these days??

Yes.
 
  09 September 2012
I'm not a Modo user and doubt will ever have the time to learn it, but I try out demo versions and just love its renderer. There's a plugin in the works called "moma", which I keep an eye on.

I wish Lux would go the same root and develop an integrated Modo renderer for maya/max etc... I'd shell out the price of Modo, just for such an renderer.
__________________
"Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex & more violent..." Einstein
 
  09 September 2012
Yeah, that moma plugin looks pretty good. Going to be pretty amazing when it's done!
 
  09 September 2012
Wow... I was completely in the fog about MODO renderer, is it just the speed that makes it special? What other factors make it stand out? The lighting and overall look? Is it actually better than VRAY? Could anyone please tell me what makes it so special? Thanks.

Long time Maya user, with some Max and Lightwave here. Does the modeling have the capabilities/sculpting somewhat like Zbrush/Mudbox? It appears to have this from my quick look.

Thanks again.for any tips and thoughts.

Last edited by Steveyola : 09 September 2012 at 04:53 AM.
 
  09 September 2012
Originally Posted by Steveyola: Wow... I was completely in the fog about MODO renderer, is it just the speed that makes it special? What other factors make it stand out? The lighting and overall look? Is it actually better than VRAY? Could anyone please tell me what makes it so special? Thanks.

Long time Maya user, with some Max and Lightwave here. Does the modeling have the capabilities/sculpting somewhat like Zbrush/Mudbox? It appears to have this from my quick look.

Thanks again.for any tips and thoughts.


modo's renderer is very good, not quite as good as Vray (especially in terms of features) but very close, and works similarly being a raytracer.

modo's Preview renderer is the best on the market, much faster than Vray RT.

modo's sculpting is functional, but not in the same class as mudbox and especially Zbrush. It's useful for non-hero assets though (quick folds on fabrics for example) but for serious sculpting while it is useable/possible it's not as refined or powerful as Zbrush or Mudbox.

Still I would definitely recommend modo, it's a really good package.
 
  09 September 2012
Originally Posted by Steveyola: Wow... I was completely in the fog about MODO renderer, is it just the speed that makes it special? What other factors make it stand out? The lighting and overall look? Is it actually better than VRAY? Could anyone please tell me what makes it so special? Thanks.

Long time Maya user, with some Max and Lightwave here. Does the modeling have the capabilities/sculpting somewhat like Zbrush/Mudbox? It appears to have this from my quick look.

Thanks again.for any tips and thoughts.


frog put it very well.
For me, I have found modo's renderer the easiest to get realistic results. Rendering isn't my strong suit yet, and I've struggled a lot getting renders to look photorealistic in Max, Maya and XSI.
For me, modo makes photorealism pretty easy. And it has tons of material presets, which really help.
Plus, you can get a bunch more free presets here:
http://forums.luxology.com/topic.aspx?f=3&t=16238
 
Thread Closed share thread



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
CGSociety
Society of Digital Artists
www.cgsociety.org

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright 2000 - 2006,
Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Minimize Ads
Forum Jump
Miscellaneous

All times are GMT. The time now is 03:29 AM.


Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.