Modo 301 Reviewed on Subdivisionmodeling.com

#18

It’s not just about posing.
In zbrush if you want to make big changes to the form, you could step down the levels and do it to a very basic model and then step up and find all the displacements have moved as yo’d want them to.

In modo, you’d have to move a lot more points which on hi-poly models could crash the system, and it also means that its not as precise.

otherwise the new sculpting tools are pretty good. I think a lot of people will still use zbrush for sculpting, but i think if luxology build on what they’ve introduced, modo could replace the need for zbrush

#19

I wasn’t talking just about posing, just wanted to point out, that low level changes(such as posing) are possible some way. I’ll do some tests as how low poly one can stay using image based sculpting mainly.

#20

For the record, Patrick is pretty neutral when it comes to modo considering he’s more focused with Blender, C4D and Mudbox.

We (SDM) aim to have the reviews be objective and informative to help someone evaluate the software for their own use. For these reasons we choose to not use a rating system, nor do we rank applications. We choose to have our reviews written from the perspective of not so much convincing someone they should buy the application but rather raise the awareness of the application and where it’s strengths and usefulness lies rather than dwelling on the shortcomings (unless those shortcomings make the application a pain to use).

I don’t want to debate the choice of subdivision levels, but consider the fact that Luxology chose the image based sculpting to subdivision levels as a compromise, and I think it’s a reasonable one. Nevercenter chose to have subdivision levels but you can see how long it took to get it to work reasonably. modo is no longer a modeler focused application, so expecting the be-all-end-all workflow of sculpting isn’t practical and shouldn’t be expected.

#21

How are Mudbox and Zbrush non-destructive when you are alway changing your mesh at any level vs. modo not even needing to touch the mesh when using image-based sculpting. You can even have a hi-rez sculpt in modo and move the few polygons that make up the section you are working on and have the sculpt follow it. Sounds like another person that just can’t get past the ZB/MB idea of sculpting.

#22

in zbrush/mudbox, you keep all the subdiv levels. In modo, once you divide your stuck. I haven’t tested out the image based sculpting yet, but in essence zbrush is more flexible because you can still step down for posing and major changes without bogging down a system.

Well, I think by Modo 401 they should have built on what they added. Also one thing I’m worried about is modo turning into lightwave. Same develepors and it seems like a lot of minor decisions are very similiar to lightwave and not in a beneficial way(lack of nodal system, construction history etc…). But that may just be me…

#23

I don’t know why but people always like comparing apples to oranges. While Modo can’t do high poly counts like Z or Mud its editor can do much more like poly modeling, rendering, animation, etc. How can you compare an app that has to accept meshes, lights, cameras etc with another one that does nothing but sculpting? Apples and oranges.

#24

i know what you mean but honestly,it should be compared to the best in its field…so why should i need any sculpting tool as a high end user when its not up to the lvl to marketleaders like zbrush and mudbox, no matter if it can animate and render very well.

i am a big fan of silo as a modeling tool and whilst their sculpting is on a good way, i sculpt in zbrush because silo is no way close to it…same goes for modo.

just my 2 cents thou

#25

Well said Alberto.

#26

its not so much saying modo sucks in that department, its more about how they should have/could have done it better.

And its not comparing the whole program either. Its comparing only the similiar aspects of the program.

just my 2c though

#27

This isn’t true at all, educate yourself on how modo’s image sculpting actually works.

#28

I know how it works. It gets the job done true, but for pure poly-sculpting, they should have a division history so you can step down. otherwise i really have no qualms with the new modo tools, just that the default UI is getting a bit cluttered but thats nothing a little customisation doesn’t solve.

#29

You can raise or lower the SDS level all you want…

#30

well for poly-sculpting, if you can show me how to lower the sub-d level then I’d be greatful.
I know its possible with image-based, but image based is more of a clever displacement map and while I admit i haven’t tried it out fully yet, there are limits to how much information a displacement map can hold.

anyway I have no real problems as such with the way they’ve done it, but if they did add a subdivisional modeling history, that would be really great.

#31

Guys!

Changing the sub-D levels – at least for modeling – is totally non-destructive. + or - on the numeric keypade, or right-click on the layer and select properties (where you can set the level in an input field, etc.)

It’s true that if you use “Subdivide SDS” from the Mesh Edit menu, you’re essentially subdividing and freezing in the same step – thereby increasing the base geometry – but that’s totally different than hitting the Tab key, etc.

Having only had 301 in my hands for about a day, I don’t know how that affects sculpting – but it’s important to clarify that the suggestion that you can’t control subdivision levels, or that it’s not possible to step up and down, is inaccurate (assuming I understood the question.)

Finally, re: ZBrush vs. modo – they’re each among my favorite apps of all time. But even Lux will admit to you (as Brad Peebler has himself said in his weekly modcasts) that they’re not even attempting to compete with ZBrush in all its glory – what they are doing is giving their own user-base an alternative, especially for certain smaller details that would be inconvenient to pause / launch / save / exit / launch / import, etc. – and for many people, they don’t need the atomic-level power that ZBrush provides.

I expect it will also prove useful for game content creation, etc. whether or not its ever used to create the next ILM Davey Jones. Though with the speed of software technology, don’t count them out…

That’s all I’ve got.

Cool? Cool.

#32

just fyi though, the subdivision mode your talking about is more of a smoothing operator. Its sort of like applying turbosmooth in max or converting to subdiv and using poly mode. The base mesh remains the same, the subdivision is applied to that.

The division in zbrush/mudbox adds proper geometry instead of smoothing.

but i agree, the tools are obviously meant to bridge a gap between two apps instead of replacing one, but a few additions to the program would mean going to zbrush only when extreme detailing is required. Unless they manage to make modo handle as many polys as zbrush, then one could say adios to using other apps other than modo and a bigger app like maya.

btw, does anyone know if modo has LCSM mapping?

#33

Yes it does. Since modo 103 =). It was the first program I used that had LSCM actually!

#34

Incorrect. The sculpting displaces the limit surface of the SDS. Not the cage.

#35

You can get a quite detailed looking mesh as well even with only a 1k map. Of course ZB can handle more and has a good few more tools, but for modo to have all this within itself is a huge plus.

This was done with a mouse, and I only started it yesterday for a few hours playing about, but its nice not having to jump out of the app to play with some sculpting.

#36

Can it be converted to geometry afterwards?

#37

Yes, you can freeze the mesh and include the displacement maps which will give you all polys.