Very Computer

by **Nick Hatzichristo** » Sun, 14 May 2000 04:00:00

I 've been playing with HV3 a lot lately. Having been a frequent user of
Steamer, a tool I really relied on for many projects, I loaded up an old 5.6
scene, after I removed all Steamer effects from it, and tried to achieve the
same or at least similar results in HV3. So far, the closest thing to even
resemble the behavior of steamer is the sprite mode. But even that,
resembles the early days of steamer, when the effect was heavily additive.
In volume mode, I managed to come somewhat close to the original effect,
after a lot of tweaking. But even then, the render times were unacceptable,
when for the same scene, and a same (and better) effect with Steamer,
rendering was way more than just acceptable in 5.6. Also, why isn't there
"particle interaction" in Volume mode like there is in Surface mode ?
Wouldn't that help a little ?
- Conclusion : please give us back Steamer. HV3 is amazing for a wide
variety of effects ; just not steamer effects. (I 'm still wondering why
they killed such a perfectly good tool)
And maybe add particle interaction in Volume mode ? Am I alone in this ?

being optimistic, however, I 'm still holding out for the possibility of
this being just my lack of HV3 experience.

nick

--

Nick Hatzichristos
3D Animator
Visual FX & Post Production

ICQ# : 48636115
http://users.otenet.gr/~nixx

by **Jaso** » Sun, 14 May 2000 04:00:00

Here's a strong, loud second on this point. Unless they can produce the
Steamer-like results with HV3, including similar production times for same
results, Steamer must come back.

> I 've been playing with HV3 a lot lately. Having been a frequent user of
> Steamer, a tool I really relied on for many projects, I loaded up an old
5.6
> scene, after I removed all Steamer effects from it, and tried to achieve
the
> same or at least similar results in HV3. So far, the closest thing to even
> resemble the behavior of steamer is the sprite mode. But even that,
> resembles the early days of steamer, when the effect was heavily additive.
> In volume mode, I managed to come somewhat close to the original effect,
> after a lot of tweaking. But even then, the render times were
unacceptable,
> when for the same scene, and a same (and better) effect with Steamer,
> rendering was way more than just acceptable in 5.6. Also, why isn't there
> "particle interaction" in Volume mode like there is in Surface mode ?
> Wouldn't that help a little ?
> - Conclusion : please give us back Steamer. HV3 is amazing for a wide
> variety of effects ; just not steamer effects. (I 'm still wondering why
> they killed such a perfectly good tool)
> And maybe add particle interaction in Volume mode ? Am I alone in this ?

> being optimistic, however, I 'm still holding out for the possibility of
> this being just my lack of HV3 experience.

> nick

> --

> Nick Hatzichristos
> 3D Animator
> Visual FX & Post Production

> ICQ# : 48636115
> http://users.otenet.gr/~nixx

by **Chris O'Rile** » Sun, 14 May 2000 04:00:00

Quote:
> And maybe add particle interaction in Volume mode ? Am I alone in this ?

No, you're not alone, Nick... there's a tone of stuff that worked perfectly
in 5.6 that's been replaced by a no-so-perfect solution in 6. I commend
their decision and very ambitious efforts to completely rewrite LW but, to a
certain extent, it seems they threw a number of babies (very cute babies who
never cry, spit up, dirty their drawers, or cause any trouble whatsoever)
out with the bathwater...

While I appreciated Stuart's post a while back, one thing hit a nerve with
me... when he said they were surprised to learn how many people still used
the wireframe mode when modeling (or something like that). They might very
well listen, but they really need to learn how to ask... I think 6 could
have been far better and a far easier transition from 5.6 if they had done
some research to find out exactly what people liked, what they didn't, what
areas they're perfectly happy with and what areas they think need improving.
I mean, how do you go about improving Modeler, for example, when you don't
even know something as simple as what display mode people prefer when
working??? They could have *very easily* put some kind of feedback form on
their site and sent an e-mail to all registered users asking for input. It
wouldn't have cost more than the salary of the person who set up and
monitored it, and it would have given them valuable insight which could have
been used to make 6 fit like a glove - something it simply doesn't yet do.

I'm not saying they didn't do any research, but judging by the problems I've
been seeing people here have with 6, it seems they didn't consult a large
enough cross section of LW users to get an accurate picture of what people
wanted.

Oh well, I'm ranting again...

-Chris

by **Mark** » Sun, 14 May 2000 04:00:00

Bring back steamer, its fast and easy, why remove it? Very odd. Also, why isn't
HV3 as good as HV2? HV2 has got more procedurals ie Fur plus its got the doubler
which makes it way faster. Why hasn't HV3 got a doubler? Insane.

Mark

> I 've been playing with HV3 a lot lately. Having been a frequent user of
> Steamer, a tool I really relied on for many projects, I loaded up an old 5.6
> scene, after I removed all Steamer effects from it, and tried to achieve the
> same or at least similar results in HV3. So far, the closest thing to even
> resemble the behavior of steamer is the sprite mode. But even that,
> resembles the early days of steamer, when the effect was heavily additive.
> In volume mode, I managed to come somewhat close to the original effect,
> after a lot of tweaking. But even then, the render times were unacceptable,
> when for the same scene, and a same (and better) effect with Steamer,
> rendering was way more than just acceptable in 5.6. Also, why isn't there
> "particle interaction" in Volume mode like there is in Surface mode ?
> Wouldn't that help a little ?
> - Conclusion : please give us back Steamer. HV3 is amazing for a wide
> variety of effects ; just not steamer effects. (I 'm still wondering why
> they killed such a perfectly good tool)
> And maybe add particle interaction in Volume mode ? Am I alone in this ?

> being optimistic, however, I 'm still holding out for the possibility of
> this being just my lack of HV3 experience.

> nick

> --

> Nick Hatzichristos
> 3D Animator
> Visual FX & Post Production

> ICQ# : 48636115
> http://users.otenet.gr/~nixx

by **Scott Slomian** » Tue, 16 May 2000 04:00:00

> I'm not saying they didn't do any research, but judging by the problems I've
> been seeing people here have with 6, it seems they didn't consult a large
> enough cross section of LW users to get an accurate picture of what people
> wanted.

I'm assuming that their "user research" was based on the users at the
big name production companies that use Lightwave, not the typical
*, hobbyist, small production studio. The bigger Hollywood
places have the funds to be buying the newest zippy-fast computers to
run the program at high-speed GL options; unlike the more broader-based
guys who just 'get along' with doing things in wireframe and bounding
boxes.

It's kind of like how a lot of websites are doing heavy Shockwave
things. Sure it looks cool when demo-ed to the marketing department
over, say, the LAN line or preloaded on a 700MHZ machine, but when most
people are running a much slower system with a 56K modem, forget it. So
many companies have lost my business because I don't feel like waiting 5
minutes for a stupid intro screen to load when I just want a phone
number.

Scott Slomiany

Very Computer

HV3 for Steamer FX...

HV3 for Steamer FX...

HV3 for Steamer FX...

HV3 for Steamer FX...

HV3 for Steamer FX...

HV3 for Steamer FX...