So, what do you think of modo?

#41

QA Manager says it all…

but for the guys griping about the price…

if money is an issue…then stick with silo and wings cuz they are really solid modellers that will get the job done. They have a much simpler and easier UI. Wings is so simple i couldnt call it an interface…no pallets…no popups…just hotkeys are right mousbutton was about it. So if you have a big package like max or maya…and just need a couple of extra tools for doing a creature head or need to keep a budget, this choic makes sense

but then…if you really do need something more robust where you need a 101 blendshapes or a tank with 5000 parts and you plan on spending day in and day out modelling some big stuff then MODO (once things like layers are improved) will perform better.

Nobody has actually taken into account the reason for the price differance of Silo and Modo.

Silo is priced for hobbyists and people with a budget…the package is not as deep as a result and will never have the economic power to do anything revolutionary like Alias does . Silo gets a lot of respect from me…and Wings even more so…cuz they prove they can create excellent modellers for the price they are at.

Modo is more interested in the sophisticated needs of production artists…the guys spending all day getting their hands dirty with pixels and vertices…these people have higher expectations(you can tell by their complaints in the forums–like me) and really test the software to its limits. To satisfy these guys…you need to spend a lot of money making a production pipeline worthy software…

Modo has the foundation for that…now let us see how they improve.

just like to add that the bigger the app gets, the longer it takes to improve all of its features. Maya didnt gets its bevel fixed till 6.0 because they were busy updating all the other features…and fixing bugs introduced with new features…

so I hope Modo REALLY focuses on modelling and not get distracted to much with dynamics or animation…

#42

well said 2bytes, I couldnt agree more, and its a nice change not having to wade through menu’s and sub menu’s to find stuff, even when you have hotkeys and marking menus setup you still have to wade through a lot of “stuff” sometimes to get what you want, with modo (and silo, wings etc), everything in there is for modelling.
My havorite line from city slickers: “Just one thing”:thumbsup:

MunCH

#43

I agree with what Yog says.

Also,the price is very cheap,just finished my first contract(yay!) and can afford it even after paying my bills…I just can’t commit all that money into something I only ‘know about’

#44

I like it a lot. I want to make it my main modeler–I’d do it in a second if it had:

-a bridge tool
-jigsaw/cut tool

here’s hoping something pops up soon.

#45

Hi Yog,

Thanks so much for the detailed anwser.

Now… Hi Lux team,

I’m VERY surprise to find out that MODO does not have many basic features like instances, grouping, transformation history information, etc. Along with some other big missing features other people posted in other topics in the past, I can’t help to wonder: WHY?

I know creating a new software from the ground up must be a huge task, but I would think if a company wants to make a big splash they would be better off hitting the ground running with a product where everything has been thought out and implemented. Even if it’s a V1.0 where there is always room for improvement, but there’s gotta be a starting point where the basic stuff HAS been taken care of, right?

Is this situation happening because Luxology:

a. Thinks the product is just fine as it is, and the stuff people are asking is not right for MODO

b. ‘Forgot’ to include those features?

c. Had to rush to market and compromise with what they had ready for certain shipping date?

d. Wanted to use the V1.0 as an alpha version for feedback or what to implement and see what people didn’t miss and what people could not live without?

e. None, of the above, the real reason is…[please explain]

If a product like Modo has been created over a period of several years, by many programmers and industry experts, I cannot make sense of why so many needed things are not there. The reason I inquire about this is because I’m very interested in Modo if it can become the software I expected to be when I saw the demos at Siggraph 1.5 years ago, and not a watered down me too product. Also before investing my money (and my time and opportunity cost of adapting to Modo, which will cost me way more that the sticker price of the software) I want to know who am I dealing why and see if I can give you a vote of confidence.

I know you don’t want to tip off the competition with what your long term strategy is, but there gotta be something you can tell your customer base before they loose faith in a yet undelivered promised.

Something like honestly answering my a,b,c,d or e question and telling me what IS going to be implemented in the next version and if that next version is scheduled to be out in 3 months or in 2 years would really help me plan my game and make me better understand if you guys are the people I want to trust to provide me with your work to create my work.

#46

Realistically, there would never be a 2.0 of a product that had everything everyone wants. I believe, and has been stated by many others, that modo’s tools and workflow make the modeler faster, and more efficient. Any number of statements can be made about a specific tool that someone wants more of, different or enhanced, and whenever we see these we take note. I have no problem saying that modo is the strongest modeling software out there

With all due respect to Silo, Wings, or whatever application that you would like to champion, they all have their strengths and weaknesses and for whatever reason they are sold at the price they are. modo is priced where modo needs to be priced, its a reflection on how far the product will grow and what is required to get there. As modo saves time in modeling, and gives better results, and is so much more open to outside influence. The end result is that you make more, faster, and with far less hassle than anywhere else.

As for the question of a multi-app system, we believe there are significant advantages to integrated technologies, as well as individual work environments. Essentially, this is a decision that should be made by the user. The technology should be integrated and the user should have the choice to use it that way, or to work in a focused function specific environment.

Whew, with all that said I really enjoy the spirited discussions on this forum :slight_smile: it’s obvious that people have put a lot of thought and time into the discussion!

#47

I don’t think that’s true at all, because researchers will come up with new ideas, and as technology and people evolve, they want new things.

Besides, how can people want things that they haven’t yet heard of, and that the researchers haven’t yet thought of? :smiley:

#48

With the constant statements about sales being much higher than expected, I don’t think Luxology is under the impression that Modo is over priced. I’m also under the impression that I got a great deal at the price I paid and would have paid more for it. No, it does not have all the features of other programs, but (specifically in the case of LightWave) it reall doesn’t need all that clutter. Instead of a seperate tool for each function, a lot of the tools can perform multiple functions. The interface is very configurable, and not only can you configure you buttons and shortcuts, but you can configure what they do and make them work how you want them to.

#49

My opinion is that they are not needed. Modo is a MODELING tool, not a layout tool. I’ve been using LightWave for years, and I can’t think of ever wishing I had any of those tools. I thnk the biggest problem is that people are trying to use Modo like they used the programs they are replacing. Why? You already have a program that does all that. Now, there are a few things that are missing (like a bridge tool), but I don’t really miss it. In fact, I rarely used it in lightWave, because It doesn’t always put the polygons in the way I want, and I then end up spending more time fixing things than if I had done it manually in the first place.

#50

Perhaps some one could write a script with the actions of selecting the vertices of selected ‘bridge polys’.Making a ‘bridge’ is easy by selecting vertices and useing ‘make’ but maybe there is a way to ‘action’ this process.

#51

Well, I kinda think that many/most were sort of figuring that for the hype, and the price, that Modo would have all the modeling tools found standard in many packages today, plus a few…

and while there are a few cool tools from what I have managed to read about, I kinda figure that these do not fully substitute for the tools yet missing…

and the object was not to use what we already had, but rather to use this new set which would have it all… hehe, not quite yet I suppose :wink:

#52

Im a LW/Maya/XSI user and I have a feeling that only LW users are defending many of things that other app users find as flaw. I thought the point was to give studios a standalone modeller which is a good idea (as zbrush has proven) becuase I dont want to pay for a full maya modelling station just to see the non-modelling tools go to waste. But I feel that some major things have been pinpointed to LW users and not actually to the majority of modellers out there. Besides the bugs that are common to new apps. So I think that price altho a bit over the bar its not so bad compared to what you would have to pay for other apps (xsi foundations is a different case tho). I liked that it could export in .ma and not only in obj.

The main point is that, I find some tools that are missing from the big apps and the only people denfending Modo in this way are the people who have never even had this tools in their apps before so they dont really give much of an input rather than: what u need that for?
NEVERTHELESS as this is a new app making its way thro i find it more important that Lux try to fix and debug the app as it is first before expanding. Layers instead of object based is a HUGE MINUS for me. There is a thread on this where they suggest giving the ability to click on an object and automatically select that layer. Anyone wanna give it a go with script?

This is not yet the best modeller out there. But it has a lot of new things in workflow and speed that I like. I think my studio is not switchin to modo yet but I’ll keep my personal copy up to date just to keep an eye on it.

#53

Well put :slight_smile:

#54

Different users have different expectations of their software. Even if we all are here talking about a “modeling only” package I cannot use it productively if I cannot instance certain details so I can see how all the instances are looking in my model. Also If my model is made out of various part I want to manage those parts (via grouping for example), and the list of cases of why the features that I’m asking for are important goes on and on. On the other hand there are tools that I find useless, however I have no problem with them being there if they work for somebody else’s workflow.

The idea of having ‘low’ expectations of Modo because is a modeler only makes no sense. If I could work with a barebone modeler I would stick to wings or Silo. But I need more, and I was expecting Modo would be it. Also I only consider Modo a viable solution taking into account that once the rendering and animation packages are ready they will be seamlessly integrated. If they are not integrated (ala lightwave), well I think Modo will just be a step forward for Lightwavers like Thesuit just said.

#55

What kind of grouping are you looking for? Currently you can group, part, or hierarchy in the mesh tree.

#56

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.