All Lightwave Music Video

All Lightwave Music Video

Post by Rob Szczer » Wed, 05 Feb 2003 05:19:32



Change is a good thing, but 'if it ain't broke...'

I'm an avid LW enthusiast but also use Max (reluctantly) and have
never liked the 'all in one' feel. The interface is awful; it's clunky
and the workflow is nowhere near as smooth as Lightwave's. Layout
never seems to drain memory in the way that Max does (or even Modeler,
for that matter...)

Two seperate apps gives a sound feeling of space and Modeller is great
for focusing purely on geometry (though surfacing has improved
considerably). If there was a merger how easy would it be to edit the
geometry of an object in a scene file without things becoming
cluttered?

Modeler and Layout are both great applications. Layout's animation
facilities are underrated and improving all the time. It would be
great to animate points directly in Layout, but that can't be beyond
the programming team.

Surely the answer would be to work on refining the Hub and making the
applications communicate more effectively... above all stomping on
bugs. A complete rewrite would surely threaten stability. Remember
moving from the rock steady 5.6 to LW 6?

Another thought... What would happen to the undo function in
Modeller... would that finally carry over into Layout? ;o)

Lightwave's interface is pretty intuitive at the moment - that's a
great strength, surely.

Rob

'Gravity always lets you down'


> That's it??

> One con and one pro?

> Sheesh.  ;-)

> ~~Deuce
> NewTek



> > Con: Too many commands in the one app.

> > Pro: Smart Skin endomorphing easier

> > Revanto



> > > This is one of those funny things.

> > > Lemme ask here for a consensus.

> > > Those that don't want LightWave merged into one application -- is the
>  reason
> > > that you don't want this, because you would feel that a natural
>  assumption
> > > would then be that the scenefile and object file would be merged as
>  well?

> > > I'd just like to get a feeling from the community, give me Pros and Cons
>  of
> > > merging the application.

> > > ~~Deuce
> > > LWBeta Coordinator
> > > NewTek



> > > > Amen brother.
> > > > I just hope they understood this time.... and hope they dont'listen to
> > > > nostalgic people who want to stick to the present status.

> > > > Paolo Zambrini

> > > > > An integrated app is for sure the solution.
> > > > > This is funny how people are asking for integrated solutions in
>  sepparated
> > > > > apps.
> > > > > Anyway i agree with ttp-on this one but i say "integrate" !

 
 
 

All Lightwave Music Video

Post by Brizo » Wed, 05 Feb 2003 05:51:30



Quote:> Two seperate apps gives a sound feeling of space and Modeller is great
> for focusing purely on geometry (though surfacing has improved
> considerably). If there was a merger how easy would it be to edit the
> geometry of an object in a scene file without things becoming
> cluttered?

option to ghost other objects not being edited (easy with OpenGL) also you'd
get all the layers intergrated into layout, that would be exceptionally
useful, especially in render passes aswell, no need to hide each object,
just hide a master layer with all of the characters or props in.. have some
explorer like panel for moving the files about

Quote:> Modeler and Layout are both great applications. Layout's animation
> facilities are underrated and improving all the time. It would be
> great to animate points directly in Layout, but that can't be beyond
> the programming team.

It would be quite possible, just imagine all those layout tools and tricks
being usable in actual modeling, I keep mentioning XSI, yeah, im annoying,
but XSI really does show how intergration can work, and the program itself
is actually quite small (considering just how much it can actually do)

Quote:> Surely the answer would be to work on refining the Hub and making the
> applications communicate more effectively... above all stomping on
> bugs. A complete rewrite would surely threaten stability. Remember
> moving from the rock steady 5.6 to LW 6?

the HUB is a halfarsed attempt to intergrate the two, kinda like buying a
car, removing two wheels and calling it a bike. Might aswell go the whole
way instead of trying to please everyone all the time

Quote:> Another thought... What would happen to the undo function in
> Modeller... would that finally carry over into Layout? ;o)

hopefully improved on :)

Quote:> Lightwave's interface is pretty intuitive at the moment - that's a
> great strength, surely.

one app offers a lot of new possibilities, check out the XSI demo to see how
its done properly

> Rob

> 'Gravity always lets you down'




> > That's it??

> > One con and one pro?

> > Sheesh.  ;-)

> > ~~Deuce
> > NewTek



> > > Con: Too many commands in the one app.

> > > Pro: Smart Skin endomorphing easier

> > > Revanto



> > > > This is one of those funny things.

> > > > Lemme ask here for a consensus.

> > > > Those that don't want LightWave merged into one application -- is
the
> >  reason
> > > > that you don't want this, because you would feel that a natural
> >  assumption
> > > > would then be that the scenefile and object file would be merged as
> >  well?

> > > > I'd just like to get a feeling from the community, give me Pros and
Cons
> >  of
> > > > merging the application.

> > > > ~~Deuce
> > > > LWBeta Coordinator
> > > > NewTek



> > > > > Amen brother.
> > > > > I just hope they understood this time.... and hope they
dont'listen to
> > > > > nostalgic people who want to stick to the present status.

> > > > > Paolo Zambrini

> > > > > > An integrated app is for sure the solution.
> > > > > > This is funny how people are asking for integrated solutions in
> >  sepparated
> > > > > > apps.
> > > > > > Anyway i agree with ttp-on this one but i say "integrate" !


 
 
 

All Lightwave Music Video

Post by Pavlo » Wed, 05 Feb 2003 06:36:10


ops.. when i wrote this i must have forgotten you are beta coordinator,
maybe i was somewhere else.... i apologize :)

Paolo

Quote:> That's my job!

> ~~Deuce
> NewTek

 
 
 

All Lightwave Music Video

Post by Dino » Wed, 05 Feb 2003 09:56:07


An update for Motion Designer would be nice.
I have had a couple of attempts at using it for one project and could not
get it to work properly.
Most probably user error, but I got so frustrated with it that I am now
waiting and hoping that the next version of Lighwave has an updated Motion
Designer or at least the documentation improved.
I would like to suggest ideas for new Motion Designer features, but I had
better leave specific suggestions to those that have more experience with
it.

Dino.

 
 
 

All Lightwave Music Video

Post by mik » Thu, 06 Feb 2003 02:21:17



> An update for Motion Designer would be nice.
> I have had a couple of attempts at using it for one project and could not
> get it to work properly.
> Most probably user error, but I got so frustrated with it that I am now
> waiting and hoping that the next version of Lighwave has an updated Motion
> Designer or at least the documentation improved.
> I would like to suggest ideas for new Motion Designer features, but I had
> better leave specific suggestions to those that have more experience with
> it.

> Dino.

One nice improvement would be sliders in MD that are values of 1 to
100%, instead of slider x = 1 to 3, slider y = 1 to 1000, slider z = 1
to 10000000ecubedtimes3tothe5thpowertoinfinity

Mike

 
 
 

All Lightwave Music Video

Post by Exceptio » Fri, 07 Feb 2003 09:17:44


I want:

-Being able to use baker properly, implementing proper reading and
back-putting illumination maps....
-Make UV maps work in the freaking preview ball for chr*sts sake
-Make the image editor less buggy (crashes)
-Being able to make an object exclusive from reflection instead of only
rays. Very important for HDRI lighting.
-Implemented Vertibevel. The one powerfull tool modeler misses.
-Being able to tile UV images. How hard can it be?!
-Adjustable curve for light falloffs.
-selective radiosity bounce for objects (for instance a skydome should have
2 and all others one)
-A history pile

 
 
 

All Lightwave Music Video

Post by Pavlo » Fri, 07 Feb 2003 19:15:31


Hi,

Quote:> -Make UV maps work in the freaking preview ball for chr*sts sake

Make a "Load custom object" in a *resizable* surface preview... kinda lillte
Viper. Max has it, and its damn useful. More than Viper i think, because it
traces everything.

Quote:> -Make the image editor less buggy (crashes)

Put into in a crop\resize\rotate\stretch\clip tools and so on.

Quote:> -Being able to make an object exclusive from reflection instead of only
> rays. Very important for HDRI lighting.
> -Implemented Vertibevel. The one powerfull tool modeler misses.

A storage of multiple bevel sessions would be engough

Quote:> -Being able to tile UV images. How hard can it be?!

ehm.. already doable.

Quote:> -Adjustable curve for light falloffs.

agree. Add a graph to design falloff, so light can kee it intensity constant
for a while and then decay, etcetc.

Quote:> -selective radiosity bounce for objects (for instance a skydome should
have
> 2 and all others one)

And a surface parameter to make radiosity emittance independent from diffuse
param. A want to see my floor at 75% diffuse but i want it to emit a 300%
radiosity.

Paolo

 
 
 

All Lightwave Music Video

Post by Fish » Sat, 08 Feb 2003 09:43:26



> I gotta say that I think mergeing the apps would be a really bad idea unless
> it was really *really* well done and well thought out.

> I've just finished working on a huge scene - merely "playing" the scene in
> front face wireframe mode with a GF4Ti4200 a P4 2ghz and 1Gb of ram was
> SLOW - I mean *SLOW*... ;o) And my client was constantly concerned whether
> their machines could handle it..

> Having the modeller app inside the same package would have been a nightmare
> I think.

> As it was when I needed to alter something I flipped back to Modeler where I
> had a nice *dedicated* work area un- cluttered with the intricacies of my
> scene; and I could work on an object unhindered  and then merely flip back
> to Layout and see my modifications take effect in my object and all of the
> 100 clones of it at the same time - In Layout then I could concentrate on
> other things entirely seperate from construction.

If the merger would be done properly that would work the same way. You could
have
layers as modeler has and by deactivating all layers but the one you want to
work on
you would have nothing else but the object you need to work on. Deactivate all
other
layers and voila, all clones will be updated.
Another way would be a "model" mode where you would select an object and go to
modeling mode in which the interface could look simular to what we have now.

Quote:

> I've always preferred the idea that the two apps were separate - it's what
> attracted me to the package in the first place. I see other people saying
> that other software is integrated and that's *why* it's attracting users -
> sorry I can't see that as a viable reason for preliminary choice or
> migration either. I think peer pressure is the factor at work there more
> than anything else..

No peer pressure here ;-)

Quote:

> ..but  - Film studios still maintain the LightWave approach - in that they
> have a seperate construction area for their "Props" and a seperate studio
> where they then place those props and film them. This is essentially what
> LightWave is at it's core. I don't see the studios changing that work ethic
> as it's proven and works.

Yeah, but they can choose when they want to do so or not. We have no choice and
miss out on a lot of possiblities with a merged app. Even if you would use it
like this
you could still use a lot of animation tools to model an object, or modeling
tools for
animation.

Quote:

> Mergeing the apps would be akin to the studio have the workshop right in the
> same spot as the film stage instead of "next door" ;o). Well sure it "could"
> be more efficient - but when you want your prop changed you stop and edit
> the prop - 80-90% of the time it has to leave the set - very much alike to
> the situation we have now.

Also in this case you have the choice whether you want to work on the "prop" in
the
studio or in the workshop....you're not forced to take the prop to the workshop
every
time you need a small change or adjustment. I think Aardman wouldn't be happy
with
a setup like that ;-)

Quote:

> But I tell you what I would very much like to see - and that's full
> integration of a render preview in Modeller where I can see final output of
> my texturing on my object and the render angle could simply be based on the
> view selected in the OpenGL: preview window.

Well..there's a start....just give it some more thought and you'll come around
;-)

Quote:

> Now some may say that this is a bit hypocritical of me and that this is
> partial integration anyway! - but essentially this is just developing what
> modeller already has  now by adding a render preview ability. It's what we
> already have just a little bit better and WITHOUT all the clutter of having
> the entire layout app there tagging along for the unused ride during the
> modelling process.

If Newtek does it properly there's hardly any more clutter than we have now. In
the
ideal situation you would not loose  Modeler or Layout, but gain modeling tools
in
Layout and animation tools in Modeler.

Quote:

> I mainly work in modeller as that is what I mainly do - I model - sometimes
> I "don't" even get to texture my meshes - that's done by someone else - why
> then should my work interface be unneccessaarily cluttered as a result of
> the merger?

Because you're not the only one working with Lightwave ? Geez...

Quote:> But I've just had an idea - if the core programming and certain universal
> inbuilt plugins were better integrated; couldn't we just give the end user
> the ability to *choose* whether they prefer an integrated app or a divided
> one when they install LWxx for the first time?

If the merger would be done properly you would not have to and would "never
see" the animation tools if you were just modeling. Heck if the interface is as
customizable
as it is now ( or better ) you could adjust it to you own liking. I see no
problem there.

grtz,

--Fish
-- http://www.veryComputer.com/  |  http://www.*fish.nl --

 
 
 

All Lightwave Music Video

Post by Chris Brizo » Sat, 08 Feb 2003 09:14:04


v. quick mockup of both apps intergrated

www.hades-studios.com/mockup.jpg

goes to show that in no way will the UI get too busy, layout stuff on one
side, modeler stuff on the other, couldn't be easier

would be cool if NT used the idea :))

 
 
 

All Lightwave Music Video

Post by Tolar » Sat, 08 Feb 2003 16:31:37


On Fri, 7 Feb 2003 00:14:04 -0000, Chris Brizon wrote..

Quote:>v. quick mockup of both apps intergrated

>www.hades-studios.com/mockup.jpg

>goes to show that in no way will the UI get too busy, layout stuff on one
>side, modeler stuff on the other, couldn't be easier

--
...unless you try to do some actual work in this setup --
when working with Modeler, i have the Numeric and Statistics
panels open on the right side of screen all the time. When
working with Layout, there's Graph Editor at the bottom of
the screen. Since you seem to want to have both 'sides' of
the app visible at the same time, it'd mean all those panels
are on all the time as well...now remember work usually
requires more than one viewport...and you wind up with
effective work space of the size of postage stamp.

T.
..just to point out 'easy solution' doesn't have to mean
'good solution'.

 
 
 

All Lightwave Music Video

Post by Alex » Sat, 08 Feb 2003 18:05:15


Good idea Chris to have the interfaces seperated but the apps merged. You
could follow the idea on and if you have a dual moniter setup have one
interface for each (but the LW would still be mereged. That way you would
have the benifit of merged Layout and Modeler but still have the seperatenes
that some people like, this I think would increase workflow for two reasons.
1) The stability of on app
2) keeping modelling tools and layout tools seperate.

The way LW7.5 is at the moment with both apps running there is a fair amount
of duplication and the (r)Hub(ish). This gives you 3 apps to crash instead
of one, but in saying that the only real crasher that I have is the Hub as I
do not have that many 3rd party plugins installed.


Quote:> v. quick mockup of both apps intergrated

> www.hades-studios.com/mockup.jpg

> goes to show that in no way will the UI get too busy, layout stuff on one
> side, modeler stuff on the other, couldn't be easier

> would be cool if NT used the idea :))

 
 
 

All Lightwave Music Video

Post by Chris Brizo » Sat, 08 Feb 2003 20:16:07


heh that would be great, making full use of Dual monitors like that :)


> Good idea Chris to have the interfaces seperated but the apps merged. You
> could follow the idea on and if you have a dual moniter setup have one
> interface for each (but the LW would still be mereged. That way you would
> have the benifit of merged Layout and Modeler but still have the
seperatenes
> that some people like, this I think would increase workflow for two
reasons.
> 1) The stability of on app
> 2) keeping modelling tools and layout tools seperate.

> The way LW7.5 is at the moment with both apps running there is a fair
amount
> of duplication and the (r)Hub(ish). This gives you 3 apps to crash instead
> of one, but in saying that the only real crasher that I have is the Hub as
I
> do not have that many 3rd party plugins installed.



> > v. quick mockup of both apps intergrated

> > www.hades-studios.com/mockup.jpg

> > goes to show that in no way will the UI get too busy, layout stuff on
one
> > side, modeler stuff on the other, couldn't be easier

> > would be cool if NT used the idea :))

 
 
 

All Lightwave Music Video

Post by Chris Brizo » Sat, 08 Feb 2003 20:19:40


never been a problem with XSI, and those side bars are thicker that LW's. I
think even with quad view it would still leave a lot of space for actual
working. I have modeler setup something similar at the moment, with the four
panels, numeric, layers etc. on the side, never been a problem of not having
enough space, would be nice to be able to have and keep the panels that you
open on the second monitor though, and keep them open without them being
replaced eg: open the camera properties and then object properties and it
replaces it, would be neat if it simply opened another object panel, could
have them all setup on the second monitor and not need to open close panels
no more, got XSI setup like that just recently actually, but that opens on
both models regardless so I didn't have much choice


Quote:> On Fri, 7 Feb 2003 00:14:04 -0000, Chris Brizon wrote..

> >v. quick mockup of both apps intergrated

> >www.hades-studios.com/mockup.jpg

> >goes to show that in no way will the UI get too busy, layout stuff on one
> >side, modeler stuff on the other, couldn't be easier
> --
> ...unless you try to do some actual work in this setup --
> when working with Modeler, i have the Numeric and Statistics
> panels open on the right side of screen all the time. When
> working with Layout, there's Graph Editor at the bottom of
> the screen. Since you seem to want to have both 'sides' of
> the app visible at the same time, it'd mean all those panels
> are on all the time as well...now remember work usually
> requires more than one viewport...and you wind up with
> effective work space of the size of postage stamp.

> T.
> ..just to point out 'easy solution' doesn't have to mean
> 'good solution'.