We could do that if there was a demo.
i agree that lots of tools arent needed. but a few really well thought out ones :).
hell clay only has a few tools in it. ( much less than modo ) but since they work so nice, and have so many considerations to them. the package flows. because everything is meant to work together, and on the fly without ever needing to drop tools and stuff… but yeah. the workflow stuff i mentioned i really hope gets implemented, as well as a few tools that could really help
Anyone that has worked with us throughout the beta process will tell you that we listen and take to heart everything that is said about modo, modo’s workflow, modo’s toolset, and every suggestion made to Luxology about modo is looked at studied and if it makes sense, and if it’s possible in the time alotted, implemented.
Just ask anyone that wanted viewport perspective control
There is no reason for us to stop this behavior, no reason for the company to get between the artists and the people making the brush. Modo 1.0 can make any shape, model, object, cleaner and faster then just about anything out there…
So for the topic… Bring it on We want to hear everything you have to say about modo and luxology… That’s the only way we know what you want and need in production. modo was made by the artists that use it.
just let you know thou, everything you guys are asking and more were all reported as feature requests in bug database during beta and alpha testing. hopefully they will be available to users soon with a patch or in newer version
ps added a bit more
thanks for the great insight AW, although I’ve never had the chance to use Mirai, alot of the pure modeling stuff you are describing is available in wings3d, and somethings I was hoping would be available in modo. hopefully the sdk will have the power to fix some of these shortcomings using plugins/scripts. I’d really like to see how powerful and flexible the sdk is beyond the current toolset, any examples luxology? for instance, is it within the reach of the sdk to add geometry pre highlighting in a efficient way through the existing functionality?
love the look of that pig, ambient, Weee!
well you can simulate that by using falloffs to certain degree,i just tested edge bevel with linear falloff and works quite nice
Edge Distance bevel[/u][/b] ( for a lack of a better word )
this bevel would only bevel edges until it meets the next set of edges and will stop there. this limit would be there so we could not destroy meshes so easily. check wings 3d for this feature. its what makes bevel worth using, because your not worried about ever destroying your geometry.
I think what ambient is trying to say is , when you bevel the edges should not go through each other. They should stop when they hit the limit.
that is what i was trying to explain, you can set falloffs for end edges lets say, so they will get lesser value compared to middle(edges in between end and front) edges, you can paint weights for the edges that you want to bevel and the ones you think will have problems you paint with lesser value, then you end up having no problem edges after the bevel. again this is a solution, the way wings3d work is nice and we should have it as an option anyways
I have to give modo credit…the bevel is amazing and the workflow is great. If you are a maya user and like an interface that is not that much of a departure from what you currently use then modo may be worth your money. There will always be tools in some apps and not in others and I have faith that if we give these guys a chance and keep the pressure on them to give us features we want that this will be an amazing app. I work at a large studio and I know first hand how hard it is for people to migrate from one app to another, and i comend luxology for trying to make the transition from apps like maya to another pure modeler easier. Plus coming from maya anything is an amazing modeler. WORKING BEVEL…THANK GOD
oops posted in the wrong thread
Thanks a lot for the informative review, ambient-whisper
I got my first glimpse of Modo today (a friend just bought himself into the Modo-clan, so I was able to kick him off his machine eventually and take it for a brief spin). It looks like a good V 1.0, although a few obvious tools are missing at the moment. The UI seems quite easy to customize and not particularly difficult to get a hang of, and from an aesthetic standpoint its a goodlooking piece of software, so overall I’d say well done Luxology, even though I do think Modo is a wee bit overpriced for a standalone modeler with no rendering capability.
I’ll also second tjnyc’s advice to check out Cinema 9, because Modo’s modeling tools are a veritable twin (or rather subset) of R9’s subD tools, and Cinema’s UI, keybindings, interface colors etc are deeply customizable as well (in fact its possibly to tear out the entire UI and rebuild it with a totally different look/layout, and switch between stored layouts on the fly).
I think Modo looks right for people who need a scriptable/macro-driven standalone subD modeler to sit next to their Maya or LW in a production setting and can afford the pricetag, buy I also happen to think that other people who need good modeling workflow, a fast renderer and an animation timeline in the same package are better off with Cinema 9 at the same price level, not least because you can already get 3rd party modeling extensions like Mesh Surgery, Jenna, Xfrog and DPit Nature Spirit to expand its capabilities. Modo strikes me as a more useful add-on for people who aren’t happy with the modeling tools or modeling workflow they already have in their animation app, and want a more specialised modeling app on the side.
here are my my comments on after reading people
s comments. modo is both vertex , edge and polygon based modeler. but this is rather an analogy. for sure all softwares can handle vertex edge or polygons. But i mean as philosophy. I think that is the missing link in some peoples comments. for example i am quite confident to call silo and wings and mirai, mainly edge based modelling programs, while lightwave is vertex based modeler. But modo tries to handle all different kinds of modelling as good as possible. for example in wings and silo or in maya, handling large amount of vertixes is really pain, even thou there is some form of falloff in silo and artisan and lattice in maya, it is not as easy as modo or lightwave . that way if you are in wings, you try to avoid dealing with large amounts of vertex. Why do you think Zbrush is so powerful? because it can pull and push large amount of vertices like piece of cake.
So with modo you are getting power of edges and power of vertex based modelling philosophy, on top of it robust sd modelling.i just tried to list fundemantal matters here not feature lists. i hope that this can widen some ideas.
because i am getting a feeling that, people are asking what other
s softwares have as musts. it is important to implement important good features in a program, but musts can change from person to person, and also i do respect everyones modelliing way, i understand people do not want to change the way they model.Hopefully modo is not going to change the way you model but rather it will evolve your modelling.
i like the idea of perl scripting sounds appealling.
is someones comment about an open sdk true?
is the sdk free?
is it fully open, or restricted in someway? if it is so open doesn’t this present a risk for stability?
actually i still think that modo is actually better off being called a poly/vertex modeller at the moment. the reason i say this is not because it doesnt have edge based tools, because it does. but rather that it still has too much of an influence from LW to be considered an application where edges had the same considerations that polys/ verts do. maybe the consideration is there, but its not evolved enough to call it an equal edge/vertex/polygon modeller. since ive worked with pretty much all modellers in the past at one point or another, i can tell you that the main thing that other applications miss is “consistency” or tool concept unification. in ways modo has this problem too. not because of the way its been coded, but rather in the presentation of the tools to the user.
take extrude for example. its a concept of a function. and it shouldnt matter whether i select a vert… or edge… or poly. i should have a single tool that will handle all 3 modes. maybe the different modes will give me different options. but its still one concept. yet we have a tool that sort of does the job. but when you click on an edge that isnt fully connected all the way around and you try to extrude that edge, it will not work how you expect. so we have another tool that handles that, called edge extend. in my opinion its not very consistent. because we have one tool that almost gets the job done, and then another “patch up” tool.
they do work different somewhat because extrude does have a “bevel effect”, while extending doesnt. but it would be nice if modo was smart enough to know what function of a tool to use based on my selection if i simply use extrude. if i pick a single vertex that isnt connected by anything and i use extrude/extend. i want to be able to do things like extrude the vertex and have it connected by an edge.
actually it would be killer if we could have this because when drawing verts on a constrained surface ( it could be a scan, and i could want to make a cleaned upversion of the model ). what if instead of making just random verts… and then try to figure out what belongs to where and just see a point cloud… what if i could draw a vert and then extend/connect verts with edges so i could figure out the edgeloops WAY before i connect/make anything with faces/polygons.? i know we have splines and stuff, but thats another part of inconsistency or bloatware. why not make the simple/ important tools more fully featured, instead of building lots of single purpose tools for one mode…?
this is another thing i think should be considered into future versions of modo, and why i think it needs refinement.
again. im not saying modo isnt good. cuz im starting to like it more. but tool wise, and the idea of revolutionary bit im kind of missing, because it draws too much inspiration from the old ways of LW. which is nothing new.
i know people are into HUGE feature lists, but i think what should be the most important about any app is to make it accessible to everyone ( which is handled by interface and SIMPLE yet powerful/multifunctional/smart tools ). a small feature list is more than ok. as long as the tools that are mentioned feel complete
xsi for example has a lot of tools to get the job done. for sure it has a lot more to offer tool wise than modo does. but where it fails is that the entire selection methods( theres MANY ), and the many many tools for modelling slow down progress quite a bit. but it is a definitely good tweaker, ( besides the stupid selection bug/problem ).
Loop slice/ Connect and stuff
in my opinion loop slice should be gotten rid of completely and replaced with a standard and more powerful connect tool that does several things+ its existing features for the way it works now. ( like adding multiple parallel paths to an already defined/selected path. or have an option to have it continue until it finds a termination of an edgeloop/ poly row ( from the end/s of my selection )
one. it connects ANY selected verticies together with edges. if theres a path with open verts to be connected. it will be connected. the path does not have to be straight. but it could be very un-uniform. if i obviousely selected verts that already have edges between them, the tool will disregard them, obviousely ;).
two. it would split parallel edges ( or not parallel edge paths ).
three. it could also take polyrings/paths and split them like the bandsaw did in LW.( i think i got the name correct no? )
maybe something like this?
this is an example where we dont need MANY tools. actually less tools. but more powerful and better thought out ones. you guys did a wonderful job with the interactive magnets and interface. now lets see the same love given to the tools.
( btw theres more examples where tools could be unified, like beveling and such. )
by unifying tools your making it simpler for the modeller to do his job. because he/she doesnt have to search for tools so much. instead he thinks about concepts, rather than the exact case he has infront of him, and the tool he will need for the job, and making the proper selection to make the tool work.
heh when it comes to modellers i could talk for hours
Keep talking man, keep talking.
Seems like a lot of what Martin is talking about will be possible once the SDK is ready to go.
For instance, with perl couldn’t you build an extrude that took in to account what you were selecting? If vertex, do this… if edge, do this, etc.
Ambient: are you talking about stuff like this?
Fantastic thoughts AW!
I totally agree. Simple, streamline tools are all I ever want or need. I also agree with him on Loop Slice, I don’t find it as an effective tool for what I need it to do, and I would much rather prefer a connect tool like AW is suggesting. When I don’t have to think about what tools to use for any given situation and how it is going to work in that situation, I can then focus on what I am modeling instead.
this is so so on the mark…so many developers miss this point…concept of usability.
one tool in all modes…