All Lightwave Music Video

All Lightwave Music Video

Post by Erkki Halkk » Sun, 02 Feb 2003 13:21:37




>>-360 degree camera for use in those rotating, first person, internet
>>scenes .  point and shoot.
>>-random seeds for all effects with numeric input

>>___
>>marty d

> A nice spherical camera, or possibly an easy way to render out a cube map with
> a single button  (i.e.  not set up 6 cameras, render six images, and manually
> save six images) would be a godsend when doing reflection maps.  

RefGen from my plugpak does exactly this, automated. Plus renders them
to a single spherical projection image. It's not perfect, but it's close ;)

CU
--
- Eki

http://www.akmp-program.fi
http://www.kolumbus.fi/erkki.halkka/

*************************************
******** warp9.to/soapwish **********
*************************************

 
 
 

All Lightwave Music Video

Post by Erkki Halkk » Sun, 02 Feb 2003 14:10:39



> 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.

Quote:>>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
to me...

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
> packages.

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
subtabs... yuck.

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
> productivity.

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.

CU
--
- Eki

http://www.akmp-program.fi
http://www.kolumbus.fi/erkki.halkka/

*************************************
******** warp9.to/soapwish **********
*************************************

 
 
 

All Lightwave Music Video

Post by Erkki Halkk » Sun, 02 Feb 2003 14:25:51



> Right - because you can scale in Layout and then save transformed -- but it
> doesn't work the same in modeler.

I recall save transformed saves the object with the original surface
parameters - so the result of doing a save transformed with a scaled
object would be exactly same as scaling it in modeler.

Quote:> What about a "sticky"mode or something?

Of course, it's not as simple as it sounds. It would work for scaling,
rotation and the other basics supported by mapping parameters, but not
for other modeling operations i think.

Anyway, if one wants sticky surfaces, there's always UV maps...

CU
--
- Eki

http://www.akmp-program.fi
http://www.kolumbus.fi/erkki.halkka/

*************************************
******** warp9.to/soapwish **********
*************************************

 
 
 

All Lightwave Music Video

Post by Brizo » Sun, 02 Feb 2003 19:44:58




> >>-360 degree camera for use in those rotating, first person, internet
> >>scenes .  point and shoot.
> >>-random seeds for all effects with numeric input

> >>___
> >>marty d

> > A nice spherical camera, or possibly an easy way to render out a cube
map with
> > a single button  (i.e.  not set up 6 cameras, render six images, and
manually
> > save six images) would be a godsend when doing reflection maps.

> RefGen from my plugpak does exactly this, automated. Plus renders them
> to a single spherical projection image. It's not perfect, but it's close
;)

and works perfectly for cubic QTVR (if you dont use the alpha channel) right
Eki? ;)
 
 
 

All Lightwave Music Video

Post by Colin Kai Heap » Sun, 02 Feb 2003 20:25:42


Got it in one Eki!

When I am modelling, I'm focused on the gemoetry side of things, rarely do I
try to even set up "proper" surfacing at this stage. I find that can confuse
the issue.  If you look at the trend for overcaster 'displayed' objects, it
seems texturing is last on many people list.
I like getting it done, then once I'm in Layout, I can focus on the textures,
lighting and camera work, which, really, are very inter-dependant. I mean,
based on the scene light, a texture that seemed 'right' can suddenly look very
wrong.
If I could have the choice of loading modeller or Layout 'interface' with the
suitable list of options, I wouldn't care if LW was an "integrated" app.
It could read 3 configs say, based on passed arguments, (in the way scene
files,configs and the hub are handled now).
One for Layout only, one for modeller, and another for the integrated version,
you could have a shorcut for each "version". That way, those low on resources
could still get to use it whilst the "must be one app" crowd can have it their
way as well.

-Colkai



Quote:>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.

 
 
 

All Lightwave Music Video

Post by David McCal » Mon, 03 Feb 2003 00:29:52


I would weight in as being Ok with modeler being a separate tool.
It's never been any issue for me. But then, I am not a good example
of a power user in LW.

I have not even had much of an issue with the hub. It seems like I
can confuse it, if layout or modeler crash, then I open a replacement.

Could someone that hates the hub help me understand the issue
so I can hate it too :-)

David

 
 
 

All Lightwave Music Video

Post by Brizo » Mon, 03 Feb 2003 00:39:16


don't like the HUB here either

slows things down (not for everyone but does for me)

it can become confusing with which object is supposed to be saved and which
isn't

its buggy

the reason of yours below, too easy to confuse it

its quicker to save out and load into layout and replace from saved versions

work can get lost or messed up from using it

though it has the very useful advantage of backups being saved.. drop the
HUB, merge the apps together, but keep the autosaving the HUB had.. also fix
the program so it can try to recover from a crash like XSI does.. which
saves tons of time if things go*up


Quote:> I would weight in as being Ok with modeler being a separate tool.
> It's never been any issue for me. But then, I am not a good example
> of a power user in LW.

> I have not even had much of an issue with the hub. It seems like I
> can confuse it, if layout or modeler crash, then I open a replacement.

> Could someone that hates the hub help me understand the issue
> so I can hate it too :-)

> David

 
 
 

All Lightwave Music Video

Post by David McCal » Mon, 03 Feb 2003 03:16:50



> don't like the HUB here either

> slows things down (not for everyone but does for me)

> it can become confusing with which object is supposed to be saved and which
> isn't

> its buggy

> the reason of yours below, too easy to confuse it

> its quicker to save out and load into layout and replace from saved versions

> work can get lost or messed up from using it

> though it has the very useful advantage of backups being saved.. drop the
> HUB, merge the apps together, but keep the autosaving the HUB had.. also fix
> the program so it can try to recover from a crash like XSI does.. which
> saves tons of time if things go*up

Thank you.

I just haven't passed it hard enough to have it be an issue.
I do like being able to pass objects back and forth easily,
but have had issues with forgetting to save objects after
altering them (very upsetting if LW crashes), but I usually
blame myself in those situations.

LW shouldn't crash, but it seems like I'm the "Crash King"
I have rarely used an application that I couldn't crash.
Funny thing about that is that my crashes often happen
while saving, or cleaning up in preparation for a save.
It isn't just LW either :-(

David

 
 
 

All Lightwave Music Video

Post by Pavlo » Mon, 03 Feb 2003 03:57:35


Hi Eki,

Quote:> RefGen from my plugpak does exactly this, automated. Plus renders them
> to a single spherical projection image. It's not perfect, but it's close

;)

Quite useful indeed, but you still have to get a .mov output from this.

Have you ever heard of Panocube?  http://www.panoshow.com/panocube.htm
It's by far the fastes way to generate panoramics. It just need 6 shots to
describe a cube, then  all you have to do is rename the files, edit the
little text file (which is a config file) and run the EXE.
Voil! A cubic QTVR is saved. I use it massively and it's 100% reliable.
Again, working with images, you don't have to worry about pixel/image
filters not being taken into accont (this is a major drawback of all
plugins, even commercial ones, trying to make a QTVR panoramic in 1 shot).
I wonder if Newtek can grab this (with author's permission) and implement it
as plugin into LW to have a 1-shot QTVR maker. It would be a nice one.

Paolo Zambrini

 
 
 

All Lightwave Music Video

Post by Brizo » Mon, 03 Feb 2003 04:06:33



Quote:> Thank you.

> I just haven't passed it hard enough to have it be an issue.
> I do like being able to pass objects back and forth easily,
> but have had issues with forgetting to save objects after
> altering them (very upsetting if LW crashes), but I usually
> blame myself in those situations.

I blame the closest person next to me at that moment, why make yourself feel
bad when you can do it to someone who doesn't deserve it? hehehe.. joking
btw.. maybe

Quote:> LW shouldn't crash, but it seems like I'm the "Crash King"
> I have rarely used an application that I couldn't crash.
> Funny thing about that is that my crashes often happen
> while saving, or cleaning up in preparation for a save.
> It isn't just LW either :-(

It's not just you that happens to :) I think I share the Crash King Crown
for having programs crash during a save, or the annoying ones that happen
the second I think "hmm, I should save this now... crash.. .arrrghhh etc."
lol
 
 
 

All Lightwave Music Video

Post by Pavlo » Mon, 03 Feb 2003 04:07:08


Hi,

Quote:> When I am modelling, I'm focused on the gemoetry side of things, rarely do
I
> try to even set up "proper" surfacing at this stage. I find that can
confuse
> the issue.  If you look at the trend for overcaster 'displayed' objects,
it
> seems texturing is last on many people list.
> I like getting it done, then once I'm in Layout, I can focus on the
textures,
> lighting and camera work, which, really, are very inter-dependant. I mean,
> based on the scene light, a texture that seemed 'right' can suddenly look
very
> wrong.

Tis does not ake in account UVs and texture placing. Sometimes modeling is
texture or view related, so you have to model so that your model fits your
texturing/camera needings. I dunno about you, but this happens very often to
me, and switching 200 times in 2 hours si quite unproductive ad
slowing-down.

Quote:> If I could have the choice of loading modeller or Layout 'interface' with
the
> suitable list of options, I wouldn't care if LW was an "integrated" app.
> It could read 3 configs say, based on passed arguments, (in the way scene
> files,configs and the hub are handled now).
> One for Layout only, one for modeller, and another for the integrated
version,
> you could have a shorcut for each "version". That way, those low on
resources
> could still get to use it whilst the "must be one app" crowd can have it
their
> way as well.

I cannot understand you here - imho this way means having 2 different apps,
one in the current way (2 separated modules), and another completely
different with a merged environment (and maybe different sub-tabs). Can you
explain your idea a little in depth?

Bye
Paolo Zambrini

 
 
 

All Lightwave Music Video

Post by David McCal » Mon, 03 Feb 2003 08:09:54





> > Thank you.

> > I just haven't passed it hard enough to have it be an issue.
> > I do like being able to pass objects back and forth easily,
> > but have had issues with forgetting to save objects after
> > altering them (very upsetting if LW crashes), but I usually
> > blame myself in those situations.

> I blame the closest person next to me at that moment, why make yourself feel
> bad when you can do it to someone who doesn't deserve it? hehehe.. joking
> btw.. maybe

God, if only there were someone besides myself to blame.
I work and stumble alone :-(  I  have a wife and son, but
I really can't blame them for this stuff (or I would :-)

Quote:> > LW shouldn't crash, but it seems like I'm the "Crash King"
> > I have rarely used an application that I couldn't crash.
> > Funny thing about that is that my crashes often happen
> > while saving, or cleaning up in preparation for a save.
> > It isn't just LW either :-(

> It's not just you that happens to :) I think I share the Crash King Crown
> for having programs crash during a save, or the annoying ones that happen
> the second I think "hmm, I should save this now... crash.. .arrrghhh etc."
> lol

Sorry to hear that