Thursdays MODO Videos are up!!

#13

what they put in there are great additions to current modo.What you are asking is major additions. I mean look even maya changes from 5 to 6 which was supposed to be major they add nothing to modelling at all. But in modo case what they put is more than just couple of tools, they are great tools. You do not care about 50 fancy tools but there are others who care about couple important tools other there, i think you would appreciate the fact that a company cannot satisfy everyone. On top of it even the additions they have put require extensive amount of testing. the things you are asking is not possible to deliver in time, thus it would not be an update it would be a version.

“Modeling at the speed of thought”, i personally model at speed of thought. i cannot comment for others, only time modo slows me is when modo is slow, which will be fixed for new “version” hopefully.

i like wings too but it is not absolute, neither mirai nor lightwave. all have their flaws and weaknesses. I am guessing most of the problems shows up because people are used to other packages, which is just normal. But as an old lightwave user i can tell you that modo is not quite lightwave either.

the fact is would you prefer a bridge or connect tool or smart highlight? i personally prefer bridge or connect, because a tool like bridge is an essential for physical modelling (it helps you to create new vertices) , smart highlight is a helper, thou that is my personal opinion. i was never impressed with smart highlighting. But instead modo has element tool, which does a superb job and got better with the update.

you do not need to activate tools, tools can be autoactivated!.

for certain actions you can use screen falloff and airbrush falloff, that way you do not even need to select anything. wings has no such thing neither maya (maya artisan cannot come close to of easiness in modo falloffs)

i use my wacom with modo, and it is plain great. But as you stated i do wish some additional adjustments to interface and input ui.Because wacom service settings sometimes is not enough to achieve. And i am hoping that pressure sensitivity will be supported in new version of modo

on the other hand,
i found wings and silo`s work style is really strict and is not bendable at all. I mean if you like the way it works you would have no problem. But try changing the way silo or wings want you to work? But in modo at least there is some easiness to goto either sides.At least to some extend if not total(otherwise we would call it silo or wings not modo).
as i stated before silo and wings and mirai are strictly edge based.Thou some did nto even agree on this one, based on the argument that modo lacked edges and edges operations.
on the other side modo is heavily vertex and polygon based and controls polygons and edges to some extend, and does a beautiful job. Try controlling huge amount of vertices in wings or silo seriously?try moving some hundreds vertices smoothly or rotate them smoothly ( i do not mean linear moving or rotating) , it would be really hard to control huge amount of vertices, unlike zbrush or modo.
Thus comparing different packages are not a productive way of doing stuff. Modo is not on the same lane as silo and wings. Even things like macros, morphing and maya scene reading in modo support this.

thou i admire that wings has such camera control options that serves fo different purposes. i am wishing that slide and camera controls from wings to show up in modo

#14

In your whole post, you are mixing a lotta things that shouldn’t be mixed. Maya is, at it’s core, an animation package. That’s where Maya is strong. The whole Polygonal Modeling Package inside of Maya is a bad joke without Plug-Ins such as Byrons Poly Tools, etc. You can’t compare Maya with Modo. Maya = A whole animation package, Modo = A plain Modeler. That’s it.

But in modo case what they put is more than just couple of tools, they are great tools. You do not care about 50 fancy tools but there are others who care about couple important tools other there, i think you would appreciate the fact that a company cannot satisfy everyone. On top of it even the additions they have put require extensive amount of testing. the things you are asking is not possible to deliver in time, thus it would not be an update it would be a version.

I personally think that Modo is at about 50% of what it could be right now. I think Luxology passed the chance to deliver what they could have delivered! In Modo, a lot of Fundementals that you would expect in a modern modeler aren’t implemented yet. And I think that’s a major problem: I don’t care about tools if the fundementals aren’t laid out. It’s as if I’d want to decorate a house that hasn’t been built yet - That’s what I meant when I said, that I don’t care about tools if there’s still a lot of stuff missing, that would actually be essential.

 the fact is would you prefer a bridge or connect tool or smart highlight? i personally prefer bridge or connect, because a tool like bridge is an essential for physical modelling (it helps you to create new vertices) , smart highlight is a helper, thou that is my personal opinion. i was never impressed with smart highlighting. But instead modo has element tool, which does a superb job and got better with the update.

Have you ever modeled anythig organic? While modeling, 99% of our time we’re moving points around, so that should be super easy. In Modo, with the element move tool, I don’t get ANY Feedback, if I grabbed the right component. It’s simply trial and error and it shouldn’t be like that. Smart Highlighting is a BIG ISSUE! A tweak mode without Smart Highlighting is like a christmas tree without lights - It’s just not complete. While modeling organic models, you’re using Tweak all the time and if you get frustrated, cause you’re always picking the wrong components, thanks to no feedback at all, you’ll quickly want to smash your head against something. Smart Highlighting and Pre-Selections would be a perfect addition to Modo and would make modeling organic models MUCH easier! There are already great deformation tools in Modo, now we just need a tad more feedback and control…

on the other hand,
i found wings and silo`s work style is really strict and is not bendable at all. I mean if you like the way it works you would have no problem. But try changing the way silo or wings want you to work?

Silo is one of the most configurable modelers out there. About everything can be configured, have you even used it? My Silo Configuration has about nothing in common with the Silo defaults, I changed a lotta stuff until I felt comfortable. But now, I love how it feels. I’m sure, if you have enough knowledge how things should work, you can configure Silo the way YOU like. Sure, Silo’s also still missing a lot of stuff, but it’s at least very configurable…

I’m very interested in Modos future development, but I think we shouldn’t hype every single tool, addition, whatever, just because Luxology stands behind Modo. Fanboy-ism isn’t productive at all, I would rather be a meanie, who gives constructive criticism than beeing someone who has to get comfortable with obvious lacks and errors. There’s still tons of stuff to do!

#15

@ Thomas Mahler, i can’t agree more

@ kursad_pileksuz, the approach of modo to integrate edges, let them fall in the points lack, tell me if there is a vertex weight map ala LW in modo?if ther is fillet rounder per vertex? even i c that the edge system is not complete or strong too.

now upon what lux said b4, that modo is extensible, and open sdk (which is not shown till now) and super coding and…we thought that a small implemantation will not be that hard, as we gived and still giving suggestions, with no feedback or any response.

#16

Very well-said, Tom and I concur 120%. While Modo’s interface and novel toolpipe lends you an air of configurability, I to feel that it lacks certain ‘basic’ tools (snapping, better curve support, better slice options, and better feedback).

Also, there are other modelers out on the horizon such as:

  1. Clay3D - not much is known about this one-man hush-hush project but every artist I’ve ever come across that had the chance to work with this application swears by it (kinda like Modo’s initial stages). Very intriguing.

  2. Mirai - now that IZware has successfully bought themselves out of NGC, thay are developing the next successor to Mirai. I just hope that they come out with a modeler-only package that has all the (modeling) tools in the full-blown application. Kinda like Nendo on steroids. This makes the development of Wings3D that much more interesting.

  3. Silo3D - while the interface is not as snazzy as Modo’s, it is by no means a less capable modeler. I have configured my copy of Silo work like XSI and I have no complaints thus far. I’ve installed it on my notebook so that I can model even when I’m away from main workstation. Plus, with the upcomming tools like (sub) surface deformations, bone deformers, and universal snapping, the aplication just becomes more valuable to me and is quickly becomming my primary polygonal modeling tool.

In the end, I think added competition in the modeler-only arena will benefit the artists. However, I am still interested in Modo’s development but will probably refrain from purchasing until it becomes a little more mature because, honestly, the ‘wow’ factor has significantly worn off.

#17

Thomas ,
i am a modeler and my main job is creating characters and creatures and such, includes highpoly and low poly. And with modo i have done quite alot of them.i cannto show any examples of those work due to my contract but you can check out my web site to see couple of simple things i did with modo, if you are wondering.

my main argument is not to argue but bring the conversation to certain place where everyone can agree.Also i use modo for more than a year i think, because i was in the alpha team as well. But i do nto work for luxology so my comments are based on my liking of modo.
Since i am a longer time user than those who just bought it, i know more than most of the people here about modo. At least in a sense of configuring and using it. Thus i went through what most of the guys did here. I was so hesistant in the beginning and i was looking for the way things i was doing in lightwave (and remember it is not fun to use an alpha or early beta software as well) . Now i do not. Because i know enough about it, and i had configured modo as much as i did. i never use menus, and possibly i replaced most of its shortcut mappings and do nto use the tools it came with i made my custom tools.

about silo being strict, i did not mean configuration, i meant the way you work. In silo you cannot work like the way you worked in lightwave for example. But in modo to certain extend you can get close to silo (except camera stuff). Now i call this flexible. i did not try to undermine any of those great packages. But i just feel like silo or wings dictate one kind of work style, even thou you can configure it. I used wings i like it, and i tried silo great software.

Smart highlighting is not big issue.It is a big issue to those who come from wings/mirai side and to you. I do not mean it should nto be important.But the way you guys put it sounds like it is the fundemental of modelling, without it nothing would work. i respect people`s needs, but everyone has different needs.

about element mode, i hardly pick the wrong element. but that is me, i am sorry if i am not supporting your claim, but really i do not do much mistakes in modo in element mode. It is something people can pick by using modo more, not a skill or talent. I just understand the software that is why i know where sofware would get confused thus i itry the right move without comprimise. And since it is a habit i spend virtually no time.

to me falloffs and element mode make organic modelling way better than smart highligting.Thus i personally am in no hurry of smart highlighting

also i am a long time maya user, thus i know some about it too. i gave maya as an example because most of the people were struglling with the fact that modo was just a modeler and they would like modo as more streamline animation modelling package. So it was a claim to show to those kind of people not really directed at you.

on top of these, for sure good wishes should make in the software, and i can tell you pretty much that everything (or %95 of) asked on these boards are already asked by testers for quite sometime, some of them are asked many many times, like slide tools or better wacom support, better mouse support etc etc. It is just that they do not have much time to put everything. it is really hard to pull good software from 0. Especially size of modo, and they have other stuff they work on related to nexus stuff. But that is not the user end.

It is a good thing that people ask for stuff, but everything we ask are personal stuff and may not represent the “absolute”

that is my argument, otherwise i have no problems witht he wishes you have listed, and i support you. And also remember this is a new package adn to certain extend you need to live with some ways of new package. ANytime you change brand of any product that is what you will need to face.

#18

well as i said before, stuff is not planned around edges, thus world in modo does not turn around edges. In the end in 3d world everything is vertex. edges and polygons are representation.But that should not limit the way and creative operations should work per element type.I am personally happy with edges but my standards are my personal ones. Some may have different, and may expect an edge to do different thing than what i want an edge to do.
There are couple of stuff is missing regarding edges, like sliding. But i am just happy that modo edge bevel works better than maya`s edge bevel.

well it is not implementation taking time, testing and perfecting implementation takes time.
I am not a programmer or i work for lux. So i cannot answer about sdk question technically. But i personally know that it is in developement and they wanted to bring it with new update.But i think they just could not finish in time so far.

“edge system is not complete or strong” is not suggesting anything, if you can give spesific examples related to edges i can tell you if you can or not.

#19

sdk must be out a week after modo, that was brad, and i insiste that we need sdk, coz it’s the only way for developpers to extend modo and plugins.
and about edges, it lack:
sliding.
connect
bevel probs (concerning rounding)
edge extend for adjacent edges (when in local mode) it doesn’t work as local.

lw with no real edge selection, can handle a lot of edge tools and commands, and better than modo, especially rounder, sliding, stretching…but yes it lack edge weight, as modo lack vertex weight, what a shame.

#20

as a user i insist that people need sdk, so we can get some plugins scripts rolling :slight_smile:

Sliding was one of the things that i mentioned so many times and some other testers believe me, unfortunately it has not made it yet. Maybe it is too hard to implement. I try to simulate it litle bit by using constraint. Thus i am with most of the users who are in favor of sliding.But there are work arounds believe me.

new update is going to satisfy some of those features people wanted.
i have never used lightwave bevel plugins (last lw i used was 7). so i cannot comment on roundings etc. Modo has rounding and they corrected somestuff in the update but i am not sure how close to what you want from lightwave. But i did not know that lightwave had sliding as well.

well most of the lightwave extra edge simulators plugins were additional plugins you needed to pay. except fis wrinkle and jigsaw and japanese edge tools (tho this cone cannot come close to modo). i really like fis wrinkle and jigsaw but i think modo has overcome it them easily since there are real edges.

well about vertex weight issue. I think that most people wanted edge weight thus they implemented edge weight. I just do not see why we cannot have vertex subd weight. For most of the purposes edge subd weight makes quite sense especially hard modelling. But i can see why people would need vertex subd weight.

But to be honest, since i was a long time lightwave user too, modo and lightwave modeler are not comparable at this point. especially as raw package. (forgive me if i mistaken lightwave 8, because i have not used it) i will list things lightwave modeler does not have, and please correct me , and this stuff are really fundemental to modelling and i will try listing hardcore stuff, and some of them are missing in some other packages as well

construction plane
constraint
falloff mixing (mix vertex map with spherical for example)
element falloff (new update will have a surprise)
normals calculations
ngons
double clicking an edge selects ring, double clicking on polygons select object
airbrush, screen falloff and noise, and inverting what falloff you have (these are fully usable with any tool you want to mix with)
toolpipe, and toolpipe as a mixing plate for new tools
different action centers (local and selection including affecting direction of operation)
uhmm real uv editor
fully customizable interface (i can customize my interface per session based on what i need for modelling that time)
better pie and pulldown menus, and better configuration
Macros, and easy scripting.
ability to open modo within modo nearly (you can call layout presets within anywindow for example)

in my view this list is the hardcore difference between modo and lightwave

it is really not fair to hammer modo because it is lacking vertex weight after this listing of stuff, unless vertexmap is at least 20-30% of your modelling

#21

sliding can be done by workarround, yeah sure man, we can do manythings by workarround, but who need workarround in a revolutionary software.

about the update, i really know what’s going up man, i already saw the videos, and to say it, i wasn’t impressed by those addition, yeah element falloff is really nice, bridge is good, bend is awesome, but where is the innovation, even when still lacking most of basics and core tools.

actually, i’m afraid to say that all the edge tools for lw even the simulations r for free, and the lw community even with the lack of SDK, bring a lot of plugins and scripts frequently.

well as a long time lw user too, and using lw 8.0.1 now, i will answer on ur list if u please:

construction plane, yeah it exist through 2 plugins, C_plane or jettolocal, and both r free, and for me they work like charme, more effective than modo, but less intuitive.

constraint, there is a plugin for free for lw, bg_addpoint, bg_edit, do the same constarint in modo.

falloff mixing, nah not available, but my question is why the mixing falloff is not so simple, or maybe it’s just a hidden feature to be out later, maybe.

element fallof, not existing, and is very good.

normals calculation, i don’t know if i get u here.

ngons, i don’t know if either modo did implemented in the right way, cause actually ngons in modo, is simulating spikey for all ngons.

toolpipe, it should be more innovative, and let us mix tools, actually toolpipe did not mix any tool, just let u manage action, snap, on or off, at least, maybe toolpipe let us, change the action center or snap mode, by right clicking on the action in toolpipe window, maybe.

macros, r not dynamic, they r linear, no stop point, or changing , it’s not like a script editor.
it result in dumb result most times.

don’t take this as offensive to modo, or lux team, actually i’m very interrested in modo, and looking forward to it’s future, and using it since it’s release, not as much as u, but no need for more than this time to evaluate it.
what i’m worry about it, is that modo is taking the same philosophy in tools behavior than lw, coming from the same core technique, for this reason i’m afraid for the implementation of new innovative tools, and to say the truth, there is a lot of tools that r more interactive and maybe more option in modo than lw, but it’s more and more effective and work well in lw, we can list this later if u want, as i’ll do a real comparison for u, btw modo and modeler if u r inerrested.

what make us uncomfort here in our company, is that each time we do a suggestion, or comparision, or bug list, or any thing, we don’t get, but silence, and ignorance, so why to continue evaluating, we can stay and c it’s future from far away, if it’ll fit our needs, we’ll be satisfied, if not, then we’ll c.

#22

well , i am not sure if you realy heavily used modo seriously, but i do use seriously for serious stuff i am happy with it. The thing is that the way you projected modo in your answers regarding comparison to lightwave is not right at all. And you cannot get the sense of tool by looking at videos.Do not get me wrong, i have no reason to try to convince you or change your mind.Just that the way you touch the issues is not right.

i am sure you can get something like construction plane or constraint but when it is not built into software it wont be same. In modo constraint and construction plain are like shadow operators that does not bother but help me, they do not slow my work speed , not a bit but they make it faster and more precise.

i d not agree with you about toolpipe. toolpipe is a palette.And you are just looking at it from the other side of the bottle. Right now it may not feel like that to you but when we have more tools in modo it will turn into a real palette

Mixing falloff is really powerful feature if you know how to need it. It is a hidden feature because they may not have thought in that way.
Falloff stuff is really important for organic modelling especially for those of us who did not train in “edge” school.
again most of the stuff you are mentioning showed up after lightwave 6.5. modo is at 1 and advanced enough for its life time.

Normals calculation, by having normals calculated you will have local coordinate system, like moving along the normals or rotating or scaling, that can be applied to any element type like vertex, edge or polygon.And having normals calculated you can mix these action centers with other tools like element tool or otherones. Thus it is one of the thing that lightwave lacked for long time. And most of the maya or max or silo users cannot live without this stuff unlike people who used lightwave(because lightwave did nto have it) , until i started using maya i did not start to need moving along normals.It is one of the most important modelling fundemental.Currently modo will average normals if you have more than one selection or you can use other normal calculation method if you have islands of selections. Quite handy to keep model uniform and smooth flowing basically.

There is nothing wrong spikey for ngons , and it does not simulate spikey at all. In the end if it does or not why shall i care as long as it does what i am expecting it to do? I do not think that your argument on ngon stuff holds right

i like macros in modo , at least it gives some simple ways of doing stuff to nontechnical users.it can be better and more controlled etc.I agree. Better than not having, and remember these are macros, they are not self-intelligent knowing what to do artificial language.

i do not think that you are forced to use it, if you are not happy with it you should not . I am not a fanboy here, i am a professional who uses modo profesionally, who is just trying to help people to increase their productivity in their work enviroment.Otherwise why shall i waste my time answering and writing endless debate about smart highlight or not. I am just trying to show other sides of looking at a software rather than eager consumer. And to be honest i do nto want lux to patch stuff in to satify those who are feature heavy.It should grow right and steady instead of fast and patchy.

My biggest disappointment with modo, which most of the people miss, is edge slice (aka knife in maya) tool. It is slow and not good enough, compared to other tools. Hopefully it will get better asap. Other one is not having edge smoothing groups which is bad for low poly stuff because i cannot define how hard and edge should be on a polygon.

if you are a lightwave user , you would know that a tool`s ability to give you work arounds is a precise gem.Because a tool cannot provide everything a user needs, but by providing flexibility user can find work arounds to satisfy needs.Thus i do not find workarounds as an argument for undermining, rather, it is a plus for me. For example maya as a modeler lacks such quality as long as you are not profound in mel.
i believe modo has such flexibility , as someone who used wings, blender, ligthwave, maya, real3d and modo.

i would like to hear (as someone who used lightwave more than 5 years heavily) what you have to say about lightwave vs modo , if you have time. For example i have not done any serious patch modelling in lightwave , so maybe some people who are into patch modellling may have complaints about modo`s patch style .

About you are asking requests , or sending bugs etc to luxology, i cannot comment on that because i d onto work for or with them. As a tester they are quite responsive and i know some people on these boards actually like responses of lux guys. Try luxology`s forums on their web site. Try posting bugs on these boards because if you cannot send them to lux as testers we would submit them for you if we find them consistent and not user error.

#23

Well I’ve used Lightwave since 1994 (or so, it’s been so long I’ve forgotten) - have used Maya since V. 3 and many other packages during the course of my career. I don’t really see the point in direct feature comparisons of LW v. Modo. You’re comparing a piece of software that’s undergone about 10 major revisions and has over a decade’s worth of scripts and plugins to a program that’s just been released. Furthermore, the guy that’s responsible for Modeler is also responsible for Modo - I’m pretty sure Stuart has used his 15 or 20 some odd years of experience building a better program than the one he started writing in the early nineties. That’s logical, right? Right…so yes, Modo will overtake Modeler eventually in the “feature” dept. - but more importantly it’s just a better way of working. Anybody who has spent some serious time with it (and doesn’t have their ways set in stone) will agree.

I’ve never used Mirai - but people seem to think highly of it. Personally I don’t even like to model that much - but Modo is like a breath of fresh air to me. I suppose if I had been using features like ‘pre-highlighting’ for 10 years I would probably feel they were essential. But I’ve managed to get along quite well without it for a long time (as have thousands of others) so it can’t be THAT essential. But I suppose it would be nice.

People - you have to remember that at least half the modelling tools anybody uses are plugins. The plugins and scripts for Modo will come - once the sdk is out it will be like Luxology just expanded their R&D dept. exponentially. I’m sure that Allen and Stuart and co. are smart and experienced enough to make Modo and their subsequent products open enough for other programmers to tailer them to their heart’s content. I don’t think they’ll make the same mistakes they made with LW.

I’ve been very impressed with Modo - and continue to be more so the more I use it. It’s a fantastic base upon which to build a new Modelling platform - and I’m quite sure as the months (and years) roll by it will become ever the better.

best,

Greg

(who just finished setting up his son’s giant train in front of the Xmas tree and needed to break so here I am… : ))

#24

TOOT, TOOT :thumbsup:

Merry xmas to all, and best wishes for the new year

MunCH

#25

Yeah, I’d love to see Clay in action. Heard a lot of great stuff about it, but I also heard that it’s still a pretty early beta. Just checked the rocket3d site, but it hasn’t been updated for a year or so… Maybe Martin could work on a little video tut, so we could see Clay in action - That’d be great :slight_smile:

  1. Mirai - now that IZware has successfully bought themselves out of NGC, thay are developing the next successor to Mirai. I just hope that they come out with a modeler-only package that has all the (modeling) tools in the full-blown application. Kinda like Nendo on steroids. This makes the development of Wings3D that much more interesting.
    Man, I’d simply love an updated Mirai Modeler. I would buy it instantly (not for 6.000 bucks though…) - That would be awesome. A Mirai/Wings like modeler, fast, sleek, with all the fancy stuff that we see in Wings today, real time SubD Modeling and maybe even bones… I’d love that. For such a modeler I wouldn’t bother paying up to 1.000 bucks - That’d be all I need for traditional modeling.
  1. Silo3D - while the interface is not as snazzy as Modo’s, it is by no means a less capable modeler. I have configured my copy of Silo work like XSI and I have no complaints thus far. I’ve installed it on my notebook so that I can model even when I’m away from main workstation. Plus, with the upcomming tools like (sub) surface deformations, bone deformers, and universal snapping, the aplication just becomes more valuable to me and is quickly becomming my primary polygonal modeling tool.
    I personally think that, at this point, Silo is more powerful than Modo. It is damn fast (it’s actually the fastest modeler I’ve seen), it’s extremely configurable (that’s a big disadvantage in Modo), it’s just a neat modeler, written from artists for artists - But also still lacks a lot of features. But afterall, I guess it’s not too fair to compare the two at the moment - Silo is already at 1.3, Modo is a 1.0 version, so… That’ll a tough battle.

In the end, I think added competition in the modeler-only arena will benefit the artists. However, I am still interested in Modo’s development but will probably refrain from purchasing until it becomes a little more mature because, honestly, the ‘wow’ factor has significantly worn off.
Yeah, just the way I feel. I actually wanted to buy it as soon as it’s been released, but after hearing some negative stuff about it and after testing it, I’m not so much up for it anymore… It COULD be the best modeler out there, no doubt bout that. But it just doesn’t feel complete at the moment. Feels like Luxology had to release it, before really finishing it off - That’s why I said that I think that Modo is about 50% of what it could have been… Especially workflow-wise it feels pretty weak. One click in Wings equals 5 clicks in Modo. And after all, it’s all about workflow, not tools. I’m very interested in future Modo versions and I’m sure I will buy it sooner or later, but right now, it would just slow me down.

#26

Okay…
We’re still with our 14 day trial licenses and expecting the full, hopefully this year. Are there any more videos online for Modo 1.02, besides those released for clients some time ago? Where can we see them, if any? Is there a specific client area in Luxology’s site where we can login, or all the new info come only from private emails?
Thanks,

#27

http://www.luxology.com/community/registered/preview/102/

#28

Thanks…

That link i knew. Though maybe there were more videos on another link…

Thanks anyway…

#29

All other videos of modo tools in use are located in your Luxology account under “Registered Products”.

Cheers.

#30

Well…
We’re still using the temporary licenses and have 10 days remaining, so uder “Registered Products” we see nothing, unfortunately. How long does it take to recieve permament licenses, usually? As soon as we recieve them, our Modo seats get registered automatically?
Sorry, but we’re realy “on fire” here, waiting…
Thanks,

#31

PM me your order number and I’ll check on it. Due to the holiday season order processing was slower than the usual 1-2 days, but we will be back on schedule starting tomorrow. I’m sure you’ll get your permanent keys well before the temp one runs out.

Jason
www.luxology.com

#32

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.