Why are the simple things not in Modo


#21

by auto activate i think he means that when he presses bevel for example he wants the application to automatically start using the tool without pressing left click in the viewport first.

so in effect if bevel worked in a way where all you have to do is drag left and right until you press right click to finish using tool. then when you press the bevel button you would automatically be dropped into dragging mode, instead of pressing to accept the tool that you just chose.

or atleast thats what i think he meant.


#22

yes that is what he wants naturally, but you can make bevel autoactive too, and it is not that bad thou, you just need to do auto active thing once per your tools. how many tools you need for modelling anyways


#23

thanks ambient, i get it now.

kinda harsh words for a app thats at its initial public release and publicly only 6 days old. And to me it seems your only valid issue is improving object management. Now remember its a modeller, i have no expeirience with commercial quaility modeller-only apps… anyone here care to comment/compare object management in say a silo or any others (silo is the only one that comes to mind)

Sounds like you’re letting your frustations during your learning period, on what sounds like big project, get the better of you. I have no experience but i doubt studios would adopt a new modelling application into their pipeline, no time/trianing invested, and expect their artists to pick up on projects where they left off.


#24

i feel like im spamming this thread. im sorry.

silo doesnt have any object management at the moment right now actually. but it is something they will adress before 1.5 i hope.

as for other applications like maya/xsi/max/etc. they all have object management systems. but they are either not as functional as they should be, or require multiple editors to achieve one thing.
there should be no real excuse not to have good object management tools. if we work on complex creatures/ environments/ mechanical constructions, then managing the many objects that they will be made up of quickly is very beneficial.

i dont really have any problems with the current setup in modo, but it could see some cleaning up/extension. :slight_smile:


#25

i feel like a spammer msyelf :slight_smile:

my point was to separate modo, a modeller, from those, for lack of better term, “full feature” applications. People expressing disappointment with modo always seems to for the most part hold it up to comparison to xsi/maya. Realize its not lightwave suite and only a modeller and you can clearly see how good a tool it is. Not saying its not open for improvements but as it stands i think its an extremely good start


#26

maybe we should try irc ;). but im just trying to see consistency in applications. i dont see any reason why the modeller should have a completely different system for managing objects than the animation system they will release. your doing one thing. managing elements of what you see before you. :slight_smile:
the selection sets you made could work within nexus for faster rigging/ material assignments/ and such. and youd use the same editor between both apps, instead of 4. ( mesh list/ info and statistics/ vertex map list/ and whatever the animation system will have )
a user learns much faster when things are consistant.

for example. i have this editor called hte vertex map list.

i see, weight maps, uvmaps, morph maps, other maps.
yet when i expand these theres nothing there. so why do i need to see it? if it was merged into the layer editor on a per object basis then these elements would only be created if i made them. ( if i expanded the object to see its selection sets/ morphs etc. then i wouldnt see a directory for morphs for that object unless it had some to show. or i wouldnt see any selection sets for that object unless i created some ). and this way you could get rid of an entire editor, and have it inside the “layer manager”. or drag drop stuff between objects, since you could see properties for any object that you opened up.


#27

That is because they need to have them, they are more than modelers.

I didn’t see your posts as spam, although we could use more threads instead of the same few who bought it, where is this, I hate that, ones.


#28

aye, irc would probably be best, but my spamming is coming to an end now :slight_smile:

you make alot of solidly good points, i think we more or less see eye to eye on modo. hopefully luxo is in agreement :smiley: with your ideas on object/layer management, that mockup is pretty sweet.

last note to space is not to throw modo in the trash so quickly.


#29

my closing comment is this
in modo things are very very very very very simple
, but other packages changed or altered the meaning of “simplicity”, so your standart of simple is different. in a way most of the packages got more complicated so the amount of data to control got more complicated for uuser and for software too.

modo is not a feature(s) driven software, rather it is a simplicity driven software, i really mean it, that is why it does not have construction history like maya but it has some kind of operation stack, for example. when bugs are out, and couple of other stuff is implemented, then you wont need to waste time with package itself, rather you will be dealing with your model only . think about opencanvas a painting software that is so simple but has all important stuff


#30

The biggest problem I see here are people expecting this program to work exactly like their old program. If you want this so bad, use the old one. Modo is Modo, not LightWave, Max or Maya.

Spacemunkey:

1)Your problem seems to be how you are trying to use the program. I find using the layers very easy, which is probably due to my LW background. Also, Modo is designed for modeling objects, not arranging an complete scene. It is possible to arrange a complete scene, but it would probably be best to do this in the animation/rendering package you are using.

  1. They’re under curves, and yes they are limited, but Modo was never advertised as a spline patch modeler.

  2. Action centers work fine once you get used to them. They actually offer a variety of ways to controll defromations and transforms. They are all documented in the user guide.

  3. Why is holding down the tool button not acceptable? Seems to work fine for me. The only complaint I would have is that I have to click in the view again to get the handles to show up again. If you have complaints, please give more details. It’s possible there is a way around the problem you are having, but I don’t know why you think this is not acceptable, so I can’t give any suggestions.

5)you can set a hotkey for probably every command available in modo. To do this you may need to drag the command history wider so that you can see the “file name and arguments” section. By default I could only see the “commands” section. Anywy, set the grid snap to what you want, then find it in the history and right click on it and select “map command to key” and then hit whatever key(s) you want to use for that command.

  1. Only layers. Each layer can be either an object or a part of an object. What I would like to see is a heierachy mode where each layer can be parented to other layers, so that my robot are can be parented to my robot shoulder and when I more the robot torso the shoulder and arm follow. This is one of the weaker points from LightWave that found it’s way into Modo. Other than that I like the way Layers work for the most part.

  2. Not sure what you mean by auto active. Unfortunately I never got along very well with Maya.

ambient-whisper vbmenu_register(“postmenu_1601341”, true); :

Unfortunately, it’s very easy to come up with ideas, but can be incredibly tedious or even impossible to implement. Most of the things you’ve asked for are already possible. As I said earlier, most of the problems I’ve been seeing come down to differences in the way things work between Modo and the other programs. Now if you really wanted tohelp Lux out you could send Code instead of picutures. :smiley:


#31

i thought the idea of paying for software was to get compiled code from developers that works :slight_smile: so we could do our job. im not saying modo doesnt work. it does.

my job is in pictures, not code ;).


#32

That last part I was just kidding. Just trying to be funny and failing as usual.:eek: I’ve been on a lot of betas, and the main reason a lot of requested features don’t make it into a program is not because the probrammers think they are bad ideas, but because it the time it takes them to get that one feature coded and debuged, they could add in several other features that they feel are far more important. Ive seen developers spend weeks on features only to discover that they cause so many other problems that have to be dropped. I’ve also seen developers add features everyone thinks they want only to discover that they never get used. Seriously, if this stuff was easy to code, it would all be in there already.

For now, I think the main thing people need to do before asking for new features is spend more time with the program and learn how it works. I’ve seen many people asking for featres that are already in the program.


#33

I don’t entirely agree with this. It’s obvious from who the developers are, what they’ve said and the many features, that Modo is very much an extension of Lightwave (Lightwave on steroids as many have said). 3d modeling has evolved and there are many great features, as Ambient and others have said, from programs like Mirai, Wings, Silo that would only make Modo an even better application. It doesn’t seem like Lux is that aware of them.

I would guess anyone with a background in Lightwave will take to Modo much quicker then someone from say a Wings 3d background. So those folks are bound to be more positive about it. I think most everyone in this thread only wants to see Modo be even stronger then it already is.


#34

:slight_smile: i was just gonna write that my job is in pictures not code, i added the rest later, kinda made the post sound more serious than it was supposed to :/.

anyway. ive also been on plenty betas, so ive also seen a number of software evolve. your points are very much valid.

so far ive mainly suggested stuff that is very much successful in other software, and ideas that work because ive tried them in the past. i used to be completely biased toward mirai. but after using clay for a few years, playing with silo, having to use xsi for work, houdini and maya while interning , autocad at school for a few years, betaing zbrush and using it for work i dont have that bias anymore. theres stuff i like in a lot of software, and all 3d applications are generally very much similar, except a few particulars. theres a reason why most modellers nowadays have a connect tool. its been tried, tested, and it works, as well as other concepts. its a general tool that works in many different ways depending on how used. id personally like to see the same love given to more tools.

anyway, back to object management,

the object management stuff in lightwave wouldnt need much work actually. think of it this way. if every object you make ( a fresh object.) got put into its own layer, then it would appear to the user as if it was a separate object, and not really just a separate layer. making new objects within the same layer could be made to shift+create object. shift being the standard for adding. this would make sense. ( or something like right click on an icon ) this would allow both LWers to use multiple objects within the same layer like they are used to. and it would allow for a workflow for others how they are used to in their other applications.

most of the code that lux has for the vertex list stuff would remain as is. it would just work a little different and within a different stream of code.

i also agree that more people should put the software through its paces before making some comments, but like someone said in one of these modo threads. if we use it too much we might just get used to the quirks, and by that time the developer wont need to fix them because nobody will be complaining.

if this was my software i would fix up all the workflow/bug stuff first, and work on fixing/adding tools later( except for slide and connect :wink: ). its harder for people to adjust to different workflows, than to add a new tool to their arsenal.


#35

i will give you all and example of modeling something…not making a scene…that requires alot of “layers”…when it should be more like maya or even silo which at least have a straight forward object mode. If I making a tank…with rivets…treads…and alot of repeating elements…hundred of them…this is where the layer system breaks down. I’m not talking about composing a scene…I know the diffrerence between Maya and a stand alone modeler…I use Z-Brush everyday and I don’t expect to make scenes in it. The CTRL C/CTRL V thing as far as I can tell works only on faces…and then they all move under the same transform unless you reslect them as faces…maybe I am wrong but that has been my experience. Please don’t think i am trash talking Modo…I really like this app…I was just hoping for something that would free me most of the time from Maya and its not working out that way. If they had only gone with a more straight forward heirarchy of objects and simple duplication options for that heirarchy I would be happy…I am not giving up yet…I am just disappointed in alot of ways. Its hard getting alot of people like a studio convinced to use a product when there is a big gapping whole in the workflow and a hefty price tag attached. As of right now if Silo had a bevel like Modo I would just assume purchase it for 1/8 the price, until Luxology does a little bit of a better job whoo’ing the maya crowd.


#36

there can be an "object " mode beside vert,edge, and poly. you can make a simple one if that is what you want, or we can wait luxology to adapt little more robust object mode. basically an object mode in modo`s term is “select connected” and “disable selection” with pivot action center enabled (in my poor knowledge of macros in modo, you may need to do one right and left click to achieve this, but maybe luxology can come up with better solutions) . and can be made through macro even, and put on the menu next to “poly” mode as far as i think i know about modo. You do not need to be a programmer or highly technical person to achieve this, just watch your command history.To me currently double clicking on polygons or verts selct the whole object and i am persoanlly happy with it. i am just trying to give different ideas here. for example maya cannot work without a pivot point! but modo can work with or without one.


#37

It sounds like your main problem with layer/object management is that you’re simply not used to the setup of having a seperate modelling program.

The way it works in Lightwave, with a seperate program for modelling and another for everything else is this:

-Create model assets in modeller
-Assemble and do everything else in layout

For example, say I wanted to create an environment with sky, grass, and all the rest of it. If I wanted to keep things seperate like you appear to want, I’d create a few variations of rocks - 1 in each layer - so I might have 5, variations of plants, grass, etc etc. Plus my main terrain, skydome and all the rest of it all in different layers. All up I might have 20 layers in one object all named appropriately.

I would then bring everything into layout, using it to distribute the rocks and so forth, and doing all the asset MANAGEMENT here.

The creation process is done in modeller, the management is done in layout.

It sounds like you’re having a few problems knowing what/where a seperate modeller such as Modo has in a production pipeline. In your case, the creation of assets is done in Modo, and the management is done in Maya. A seperate modeller is not meant to create entire scene files all layed out for you do import as a complete scene. You can - but it’s not made for it.

-duke


#38

Does Modo also have part naming, like LW? That could be seen as an “object mode” of sorts…


#39

yes it does, it has all the goods from lightwave


#40

space munky reminds me of all of the frustration i had of learning Lightwave…after knowing maya

if it helps with the pivot thing…try using the alt+ a, s, d, e, f, keys…that will sort u out.

its probably smart to create pie menu with all of that to save hotkey space…but really, if you can get use to that you will find it much faster then Mayas Insert key…

i would like to know how to toggle the Backface culling…