> So you have to try others i think.
I know... so much to do, so little time (and money too ;)
Quote:> In fact it is relevant because they all have understood the good reasons to
> do it. The point here is not "what the others do" but "why did they do it?".
> Let me say that if it's true than modeling is a quick task in lightwave,
> animation and scene setup is really tedious when it comes to compare it why
> Max or Maya.
I guess this all boils down to what kind of work people do. In the stuff
*I* do, i've never felt bogged down by LW's animation features.
But, i don't do character animation stuff etc, so it may really be just
me not needing the features mentioned.
Maybe you're trying to use LW with the same workflow you use Max / Maya,
and feel bogged down because of that? Simply because it's different, not
because it's worse?
Quote:> I think here than an real INSTANCE support would work way better than this.
What steps would it take in i.e. MAX or Maya to, say, replace a car
object in 20 separate city scenes with kazillion objects and animation,
with another car object?
In lightwave, it's currently a matter of simply replacing (overwriting)
one object file in the hard disk.
>>1b) I juts LOVE the fact that scene files are of reasonable size, and
>>they can be edited with a text editor. NEVER CHANGE THIS!!
> I agree with you on this one.
Wouldn't the scene files get enormous and hard to handle if objects were
integrated in scene files?? If everything was stored in a scene, in
modifier stack, it would have like thousands of steps for any model
that's even remotely complicated? Especially if you have dozens of objects?
How does this work in MAX or Maya??
Quote:>>1c) Objects from other projects can very easily be imported to current
> Again, an instance with selective merge support is the best solution (Max
> does it very well today and for years).
Again, what's the procedure like? In current LW you simply select a file
from your hard drive. Done.
Quote:> Instances and selective merge option... :) (you can even think of history
> state objects but i keep it for after, anyway think about it, no more need
> to have twice a project, just one with an evolutive object dosen't that make
> sense ?)
Think of that city with cars scene. How would you replace all the
objects (buildings and cars) for all the 20 different scene files with
low polygon versions in MAX or Maya? In LW it's a two step operation:
Change config dir, load any of the scenes. Done.
Quote:> Despite of my Bi Athlon 2000+ and my gig of RAM i am rearely able to really
> work in the modeler while i test render (i mean i can go into modeler but i
> can't really work as some heavy calculation - who said area lights or
> radiosity? :) - just monopolize both CPU).
No they don't. Either set up the render with just one thread, or set the
priority to Lightwav.exe process to low in task manager. Works like a charm.
Quote:> Anyway i don't know how you work
> but most of the time i wait for my test render because it's a... test
> render... and as far as it's not finished i dont really know with precision
> what i have to tweak and how.
Well, i usually work on something else... i mean, if i do a test render
of my lighting, i at the same time can continue refining the mesh.
Quote:> In every other packages (which offer that so cool history feature) you can
> collapse the history to have a simple polygon object which dosen't carry
> anymore his history states with him. I am sorry to say that animated tools
> are working fine even if you have a collapsed polygon object.
I wouldn't mind history states - nor merging the two apps.
But only as long as this would not mean bogging things down.
As i mentioned, i just wanna keep the simple / robust way of working.
Quote:> (and here there is a difference between maniplators like
> move/rotate/scale, etc. which are never stored into you object but in the
> scene file datas and modifiers like bend/taper, etc. which are stored into
> the history states of your object).
But there has to be two kinds of move rotate and scale modifiers?? What
if you simply wanna make your object a little smaller - do you have to
go through all scenes and adjust scaling there? Wouldn't make any sense
Quote:> Wouldn't you like to have infinite undos in modeler and in layout ? I would
> love it ! In fact i think i find it to be just a classic feature in today's
I wouldn't mind having unlimites undos, but i'm not missing it either...
i guess i'm so used to it the way it is now ;-)
Quote:>>2c) Regardless of what happens, i want to be able to have multiple
>>instances of lightwave (be it modeler, layout or modelayout) open at the
> I totally agree with you on this one, as far as memory managment is
> optimized which means no separatred modules cause i don't want the hub to
> crash all my instances because it can't handle the memory overload and/or
> the TCP/IP ones.
I've never had that happening. The hub is only actuve between the first
modeler / layout instances. The rest will open without the hub.
Quote:> I really think that the hub is a bottleneck in that case
> (which could be resolved with an integrated app that dosen't need anymore
> hub and would be able to test render you file while you are working on it
> which is actually not possible if you turn the hub down).
Of course it's possible to work on your file when hub is down - you just
have to do a save/replace with the object manually.
Quote:> In fact (despite the fact that you wouldn't admit it yourself) you are
> waiting for a merged version whith instance support and collapsible object
> history states.
> I agree ;)
I really don't mind having that, as i said. But only if it works just as
well or better than the current system...
Quote:> Or just to ignore the 4-5 more tabs in the interface.
> I don' t understand why it seems so difficult to lightwave's people to work
> with a merged app ?
I wouldn't mind that - especially if i could group my Modeler/Layout
menus under two ubertabs, which would make everything look like it's now ;-)
Quote:> Honnestely i am no more lost when i work with Max or
> Maya, they have just thought their interface for this and it works. Try them
> you'll see by yourself.
I tried MAX years ago, but i simply loather the interface - mainly
because of all those incomprehensible icons, and kazillions of
Quote:> In fact i find it even more practical than the
> lightwave interface because i have no double keyboard shortcuts to remember,
> the manipulators are always the same, the perspective view acts the same way
> (which is not the case between modeler and layout today)... Well, it's just
> more user-friendly and it means a lot when it comes to time and
I guess this all boils down to the pipeline - to me modeling FEELS like
a separate task from animation/rendering. And, the LW pipeline feels
very natural to me, it kinda fits like a glow. I love the no-bullshit
interface, and relative simplicity if things.
******** warp9.to/soapwish **********