Has anyone tried Modo?

#18

Thank you.

Do you know anyone who scripts for Modo? I’m looking for a conversion tool that turns Trigons into quads. Merge_Trigons for Lightwave is just too slow and not very effective.

#19

Well, you obviously have not used Modo then. After using modo for a while I dread having to do anything in LW’s modeler. Modo is much better, you don’t have all the constant popups, you can change almost anyhthing with realtime previews, the interface is very streamlined and does not get in the way as modeler sometimes does. Modeling with edges and Ngons makes things much easier and faster even if you have to divide them up later. Edges… well this is the main reason I don’t use modeler anymore. I can’t really describe how much of a diference edges make in modeling. Everything in modo feels like it’s part of the program, you can bevel anything (ponts, edges, faces) with a single hotkey. I think the biggest problem with discussing modo in a lightwave group is that there are a few peopl who seem to take it as a personal insult because the Lux guys quit working for newtek for whatever reason they did. Personaly I thing it’s foolish to avoid a great program for such petty reasons.

#20

All of what’s been said could’ve been gotten from a Modo list.

Marketeering at it’s best.

#21

There are some scripts, macros and such at vertexmonkey.com Also, remember that Modo has only been release for a few moths and the SDK has not yet been relesed. Once the SDK is available I’m sure that there will be a lot of plugins being developed. I know there are several people who have expressed interest in developing third party plugins.

#22

Personally i’m not insulted at all. I know the best of the NT staff have gone to Lux, and i’m happy they are on to something great and revolutionary, doing the things NT should allow them to do many many years ago.
What i’m saying is that i’d rather get my hands dirty with Modo, when it comes as a complete package having everything under the same roof and way of thinking. Untill then, LW’s modeler does everything i need, and i mean everything. And anyway, when you work on the point and polygon level of detail, and when the details are about that point and polygon, whatever tools you use to build the general shape, don’t make much of a difference.
One thing i can say to conclude, Modo can make you a bit faster as a modeler, but it doesn’t make you a better modeler. :wink:

#23

Dennik,

I disagree actually. (DISCLAIMER: I’m the president of Luxology! :slight_smile: ) I’ve been modeling for over 12 years now most of those years in LW Mod. Since I started working with modo I am MUCH better at modeling. Why? Several reasons, but I will hit on the main one. Edges. It seems silly but having edges and true edge tools is just WAY more intuitive for me. As a result I am a better modeler. My meshes have better flow, I can get out of “problem” areas in a model quickly and I can just “noodle” more easily. It’s a little difficult to explain properly but anyone who has spent a few weeks in modo will most likely agree. There is sort of a “pop point” where all the sudden you just GET modo. At that stage you become faster AND better.

I have always been quick to say “its all about the artist, not the tool” but when the tool gets out of your way, you can be a better artist.

That is all. :slight_smile:

BP

#24

Sounds like what I’ve been told (and experienced with) about modeler.

I wonder if that’s how it will be described for modeler when true edges are introduced…

I would dare say, the moderators would best serve us all by moving this thread to a more appropriate location.

This list has a decided focus: LightWave. I have nothing against anyone else’s app but I do believe they have their own space to talk ad nauseum about their product.

I’ve recently started ‘getting’ LightWave after using it on and off since it’s inception. It is a MUCH more comprehensive program than it ever has been. I’ve tried Modo and couldn’t see the point of an $800.00 modeler. Oh, sorry, modeller. Too many other programs have similar, same or better ways of working – this still feels like modeler with different constraints.

Yeah, if I gave myself $800.00 and more time with it, I might grow to like it, as I have LightWave. However, I believe that if 8.2 comes near what Modo now offers, it makes even less sense as an alternative.

#25

Brad,

Just the guy I want to ask this question to…

is there anyway to UNTRIANGULATE a mesh with Modo? I have this unbearable model that I don’t know what to do with that’s been created in Pro/Engineer and converted to a LWO. I own Modo, but still too unfamilar with it to know it’s true functionality.

Great stuff BTW. It’s what Modeler and LW should be like (interface and usability, let alone OpenGL performance). I still like LW I just need a couple of extra tools to make my job easier.

#26

there is no doubt that modo has a certain slickness to it that modeler lacks - i mean i have always felt in lightwave you have alot of tools where 1 would do noteably the bevel tool ( though i ahve my complaints against modo’s bevel tool too i’m used to the mosue drags working the opposite way and iwish that when i went to do the next bevel it didn’t jump to the same bevel as i had last time - i very rearely do two consective bevels of exactly the same amount ) lightwave has sooooooo many bevel tools or does is you want to bave a complete set

bevel
edge bevel
magic bevel
rounder
and if you have any sence bevel++

other thigns like the display some of my meshs drag lw to a complete halt where i forced to never have all the layers visable at any 1 time unless i dont plan on move the viewports load them into modo and the fly around no problem

otehr thigns liek teh local action center ohhhhhh how i have longed for this in modeler ( though i now long for the good old mouse action center in modo )

as to it making me a better modeler - hmmm well not noticed yet though i still not complete got into modo yet as brad said there is a “pop point” and haven’t reached it yet perhaps once i do and transfer all my modeling from lw to modo ( though annoyingly i have some expensive plugins for lw that modo certainly doesn’t have yet - now if only it could use lightwave plugins lol that would be sweet ) it will happen and my moddels will get better - can but hope certainly

#27

One has to wonder why people keep posting in a thread that clearly annoys them.

Go figure.

I don’t expect LW 8.2 to be more than a lot of bug fixes. Bottom line is the app needs a serious overhaul, and frankly Modo has that overhaul NOW. Not at some magical “later”.

As for the cost, I could question the 495.00 upgrade cost of LW8, just to get plugins I aready owned integrated into LW, where they will never see another upgrade.

The 595.00 for Modo is money well spent.

#28

I agree 100%. I didn’t think that edges were going to make such a big difference, but they have completely changed the way I work. Let’s not forget the work planes. I’ve been working on a house model and being able to change the work plane to match the slope of the roof makes things so much easier. Also, all the tools are completely integrated, so when I need to bevel an edge or a point, or a polygon I don’t have to use a different tool. It’s all the same shortcut key. Also, the elementmove tool is like a combination of the move tool and the free transorm tool (I forget the actual name) in lightwave where you can just click and drag a point and if you need to move it in a different view you can just grab the handle in a different view and drag it a different way. There’s no need to hold CTRL to constrain movements along the main axis like in lightwave (which would often constrain movement in a direction I didn’t want to go), just grab the handle and drag. Also, deselecting things is so much easier in modo. Just click in an empty area in a view. No more having to click in an empty area of the menu bars. Edges are just plain awesom. I saved a mesh I had frozen and then accidentally saved over the original subD model by selecting edge loops and removing them. This was as easy as double clicking on an edge and then hitting backspace. So, while Modo may not seem to have as many features as LightWave modeler does after a little use you will realize it doesn’t need them. Bandsaw, point bevel, rounder, etc. all feel like hacks after seeing the way these things work in modo.

BTW, the whole “It’s a poor artist that blames his tools” thing in the Lightwave 7.0 or 7.5 manual was when I started seriously looking at other programs. I couldn’t believe that there was an actual excuse printed the manual.

P.S. For everyone complaining about this being posted in the LW group, all of my replies have been made in the Modo group, so I don’t know how they are getting there.

#29

“Automatic” works like the mouse action center. Wherever you click becomes the center for the current action.

#30

Actually, that is very true, to a certain degree. The artist finds solutions to problems. And there are always problems to be solved. I think where NT was coming from was that there was a consistent “dumping” on them because software-X has this and software-Y has that. And that this was slower than that and so on. I would get pissed too. But I don’t think the term artist is the right word. Artists use what they have to create the work that they make. A Complainer blames his tools. People who talk and not walk blames their tools.

my 2 cents.

#31

Sorry but I have to disagree with that last reply.

Saying an artist finds a way to make things work is a cop out. Why spend all your time figuring out workarounds when you could spend that time creating??? How much creative time do you LOSE when you have to figure out how to work around a problem?

Why should you have to?

Whoopie dooo. I didn’t get into this to spend all my time working around issues. I got into it to create. If A program gets in the way of creating, then they have a problem. Addressing user issues with poorly worded excuses doesn’t cut it.

Show me another industry where making an excuse for the lack of proper tools is acceptable.

#32

I don’t know exactly why that was put in the manual, but it came across as an excuse. It’s like saying, sure we don’t have all the features of program X, but if you can’t figure out a way around it, it’s because you’re a lousy artist. While I can usually figure out a way around most problems it was becoming a constant thing in LightWave and that is very disruptive to the whole crativity/workflow thing.

As for newtek getting tired of hearing how this program does this better or that program does something else better, the best way to combat that kind of criticisim is to make the features people complain about BETTER, not blame it on the users.

#33

I also think this whole saying is a bit out dated. Back when art was being made with hammers and chisels or paints and pencils, this was fairly true, but with computers there is a whole new layer, which include bugs, features not working as they should, of features that don’t exist. Sure you could do character animation without bones, but why should you have to? I could build any model imaginable with only the ability to create polygons and move/merge vertices to join them together, but why would you want to, especially if some other package has all the cool tools that ake things easier and faster. Hell, my first experience with 2d computer art was nothing more than entering coodinates by hand into a comodore computer to draw an image and my first experience in 3d was with PovRay on a 286 where everything had to be entered in a text editor before I previewed it. Could I create art with those methods? Yes. Would I ever want to go back to them? Hell no. Why? Because there is something better.

Ok, enough ranting.

#34

Havent used LW since version 5?!I gave up on it due to the SLOW pace of development progress. But if your statements are true, i pity the fool that support Newtek financailly by buying their product.

P.S. i have to agree with MadMax opinion, if a user spent any amount of money, and the product doesnt meet there need they should speak up and should not be treated like a second class citizen for it.

i just had to comment when i saw that post, maybe Newtek should file for chapter 11 now.

#35

yup it annoys me having to click to set the point rather than it automatically assuming that where ever the mouse is is the point of your action center

hm i disagree though i’m sure it can be done in modo too i have mapped the drop tool command in lightwave which seems to be more a deselect tool to a thumb button on my mouse and its way faster than either using part of the menu or empty space

#36

Holy.

I know that this is a sensitive issue with a lot of people, but let’s be frank here. Those who say that they are unproductive because of their tools is not the 100% fault of the tool being used. Sure there is some blame to be made, but if you have worked with the tool for X then you would have been used to how the workflow of that program. Granted, Modeler took me some time to get used to as I was extremely unfamiliar with the tool set and workflow after migratiing from the defunct Specular Infini-D. But after working with LW for about 3 months I became familiar with it’s strengths and weaknesses. I’m still not the best modeller in the world becaue I think about the best solution to what I want to achieve.

BTW I’m not attacking anyone here. No names are being used or quotes. I’m not polically correct, but I don’t stomp on anyone. I’m not angry either.

Granted, NT was VERY out-of-line when it made that comment. 110%. But the fact remains, if you are serious about any kind of production work in ANY industry, your toolset is not limited to Program A to accomplish task 1, and Program Z to accomplish task 2. You SHOULD be using or at least trying to use other programs to help complete a project to your specifications if Program A or Z fails in a particular area. By A and Z I’m referring to your main program of choice.

Sure NT has made mistakes, and I got pissed at them too, but if people are so unhappy with Program A or Z and feel that it’s hindering their workflow, by all means stop using it. It’s really alogical solution. With Modo, I can already see where it’s additional strengths lie, but see where at this stage, where it can hinder production. It would be nice to see some sort of surfacing that extends beyond the basic options of surface colour, specularity, etc., and not having a render option to view the model in a lit situation, (Did I hear rumours of a render engine coming?). So there is a shortfall for now. So what do you use? Program A to do it and Program Z to finalize and animate. I’m sure everyone here sees the advantage of this production pipeline.

I’m a graphic designer and illustrator and I’ familiar of this process. Photoshop is my main graphic program. I hardly use Illustrator except for creating logos for clients. Photoshop has the ability to create vectors, but Illustrator does it better and easier.

Some people would not like to have more than one tool in their production pipeline. I would love to see Photoshop and Illustrator combined to make my life easier, but the chances of that happening is next to zero.

We all have to make some sort of sacrifice along the lines where it’s our tools, or whether it’s our time. The artist makes the best choices for how they work. Some people are just slower than others, while others are so blindingly fast it makes me horribly jealous. But to just sit and blame a company and their software for your woes it not only wrong, but unprofessional.

The solution to the problem is to work with the company and make suggestions. Talk to others and see if that is what a majority of people think, and then bug the company until they put it in. It has nothing but benefits for both the users and the company. But there is a limit to this. You can’t ask for a complete re-write of a program because it doesn’t perform well in a particular area. Eventually that will get fixed. But over the last couple of years, there were so many people wanting new solutions for dynamics (better and easier to use), modelling enhancements, etc., that NT felt that was what the general public wanted. So somethings were left out. I would have loved to see better OpenGL performance, but a decision was made not to include that for 8. But it’s coming in 8.2, along with a faster render engine solutions at the request of it’s users.

You will find with other 3D packages that there are people who b*tch and complain about the faults of that program and that it’s not productive in certain areas within the workflow. It’s a given.

Yes NT was wrong in the wording of it’s statement, but the fact remains that people who talk about their skills and how good they are, are the ones who complain the most and are the ones that slow their own production pipeline to a halt. The ones who just do, have found the solution(s) to make themselves productive and make their time as productive as possible for themselves. A sculpture doesn’t just use a single tool to create their work, they use an abundance of tools of different types and sizes. So should we as necessary.

I can’t wait to get stomped on for this…

#37

Okay, a bit of stomp time here.

You are making the mistake that people here are blaming the lack of tools for lack of abilitiy to create. So lets try some real world insight shall we?

I started in 2D illustration.

Lets say I am doing design illustrations for a car. I can use nothing but a pencil and get the job done. No extra tools, just a pencil and a piece of paper.

However, since I want the lines nice and neat, I’ll spend a lot of time very carefully drawing the curves so they are neat and arc properly, like on the wheel wells. This could take a substantial amount of time, and involve a lot of intense scrutiny and concentration.

And probably a lot of erasing.

OR…

I can go to the art supply store and buy a set of french curves, maybe some triangles, a compass set and a T-Square which will allow me to save substantial amounts of time in the drawing process as I can use it to trace a curve onto my paper in seconds vs. several minutes or more, have no erasure marks, and it will look better.

Does this mean I am not an artist because I decided to use additional tools to make straight lines and curves to do my job quicker? If so, tell that to legendarty designer Chip Foose who uses artists tools like the franch curve when he designs cars.

Does this mean I am not a real artist because I use Vertibevel? You can do the same thigns with LW as in Vertibevel if you want to spend the excessive amount of time it would take to calculate every shift and offset and then do each bevel one layer at a time. Vertibevel lets me do complex things to entire models in minutes that would take LW hours to do. So am I not a LW artist because I added a tool that was MORE functional and efficient than LW?

If I am a mechanic, and have a 1/2 inch hex head screw, would I use a nut driver to remove it, or a jewelers screwdriver? If I buy into the NT argument about blaming tools and the artist figures out how to work around a situation, then I am a whiner for not wanting to muscle that screw out because I was only provided a jewelers screwdriver, when someone else has a 1/2 nut driver that will do the same task with less time wasted on my part.

Does this mean I am not a mechanic because I decide to go out and get a nut driver set that will do the job without hassle? Hardly.

The “a real artist can use any program” argument is a lot of BS. If that is the case, we can all save a ton of money, forget Lightwave, Modo, XSI, Maya and all the rest and download Blender for free. After all a real artist can create with anything right?

I can recall many years ago when people who used pencils said that using a computer wasn’t really art. The comments were the same as they are now. People who wanted better tools were labeled as not being artists because they were looking ahead and wanted better and more efficient tools to work with, not looking behind and making excuses for why their current tools were good enough.

The artist, by nature, is a person who creates, not a person who solves problems to compensate for shortcomings in the tools. At least creating is the primary goal and no matter what we do there is always some amount of MacGuyver attached to doing things, but it shouldn’t be the major part of time spent doing things and it shouldn;t get in the way of doing what we want. If tool “B” works better than tool “A”, saves time, and is less of a hassle, there is nothing wrong with using tool “B”.

Unfortunately NT has created this environment that even asking for feature requests could be construed as saying this person isn’t a real artist because he can’t do it with the tools he already has, and a built in excuse for not adding new tools. That isn’t particularly playing fair to their customers.

A lot of people have said that Modo is what LW 8’s Modeler should have been. Honestly I agree with that. It has tools I would have spent money on as plugins. Probably as much as Modo costs to get them all and it comes in a very nice customizable interface. Sorry but that makes the cost of Modo WELL worth it.

And the funny thing is that Modo isn’t that expensive. I don’t see why people are complaining about it. Well, a couple who have an agenda of course, but that is another argument. LW is what, 1500.00 now? that’s 750.00 for modeler and 750.00 for Layout. I can replace modeler for 595.00 hmmmmmmm…

Doesn’t sound all that bad to me.

I paid 495.00 for an upgrade to LW8 and what did I get? mostly a handful of plugins that I already paid for, now integrated where they will never see another update. An upgrade I paid for a full year prior to it being shipped, and really didn’t have any new tools, and a lot of bugs still carried over from previous versions. Modo however does provide a number of very useful, time saving tools that LW doesn’t have. And after all timesaving is what it is all about if you are on the clock now isn’t it?

But don’t get me wrong. I still use LW, and I’m not bashing NT but I’m not real happy with their progress. 8.2 will fix a lot of bugs it seems, but it still isn’t a core revamp. That’s not going to happen before 9 as I hear it.

Modo has an amazing start, and is here now. Ultimately it is another tool, and a tool that has a lot of timesaving items that I would have spent money on as Plugins. Who cares if I spent 600.00 on plugins, vs. 600.00 for a complete stand alone application. Fact is, Modo is another tool, and apparently a lot of people like it. Even one of the traditional LW effects houses have adopted it into their pipeline.

As a preference, I prefer Modo now.

It gets things done.