Your browser does not seem to support JavaScript. As a result, your viewing experience will be diminished, and you have been placed in read-only mode.
Please download a browser that supports JavaScript, or enable it if it's disabled (i.e. NoScript).
Quote
Originally posted by Onyx: **As for the debate on programs that has cropped up, my two cents follows: I would say that 3DSMax's interface is what mainly turns me off from it. It's hard on the eyes, filled with what appears to be a poorly thought-out mingling of text and icon buttons. The icons are a little small and ambiguous, and indiscriminately pixelated, making it hard to initially figure out what everything is. The default hotkeys seem few and far-between, though I am aware that they are entirely editable through a hotkey menu. The color scheme is very unflattering, if I may nit-pick to that extent. ... I haven't used anything else out there save Ray Dream Studio 5, which was a fairly decent way to break in to the world of 3D. I don't know that I would reccommend it much, though. Oh, and lightwave educational price is $394 or something like that last I looked. Version 8 is due out before the year's end, I hear. $200 would be a good price, as long as it's version 6.5 or above, in my opinion. Good luck with it. **
Some debate this is turning out to be... Everyone (myself included) agree that Lightwave is a good program, and Maya and 3DSMax aren't as good. It'd be a debate if someone took an opposing stance, right now it's just an advertisement, but I suppose that's what this whole topic is supposed to be about: the advertising of out favorite program(s).
Matrix
------------------ "Nothing is fool-proof to a sufficiently talented fool." (url="http://"http://htf.mondominishows.com/valentine/main.asp?seed=7375&serial;=214877")The funniest valentine I've ever gotten.(/url)
Could someone explain the layer-orientated modelling of LightWave more in depth? I've used only object-orientated, so it's kind of hard to visualize the layer-oriented method.
------------------ (url="http://"http://mywebpages.comcast.net/genea16/Rift.html")Rift(/url) My signature needed changing badly, so I changed it. ~Nick
Well, its kind of like most other programs, I guess. Take infini-d. each object you create is its own object, its on layer, essentially. The thing about lightwave, is that the different objects and such can be combined into one layer. this is called 'booleaning' SO! Instead of having to parent each object to another, you can group them all into one layer, effectivly making it one object. This is also helpful for modelling, because you can cut polygons and the like out of object, putting them in sepearte layers, to make it easier for them to move, OR to keep the program running smoother. For instance, if your done with the engines, you can put them in another layer, and you won't have to worry about the computer having to re-calculate each polygon on that one object.
I'll take some screenshots and such when I get home today. (probably around 8;30 tonight)
unless, of course, onyx or someone does it for me ....
I'll post some more expansive stuff as well on this subject, and rah-de-rah rah rah.
------------------ "Life is a bunch of dissapointments ending in one big let-down."
Ill keep this post as short as I can,
Ive used Bryce for years, and have finally made the leap of faith to a new app.
3ds MAX - Easy to use, and a good all rounder, given its slight interface issues, and Id probably be using it if I had windows.
Maya - Complex. As what_is_the_matrix highlighted, it dosent cater for the new user. Contrary to what alot of people have said though, I found alot of its interface quite intuitive, and the 3 button mouse interface worked well. Having said that, I found it took alot of work starting out to create decent results.
Lightwave - Personalyl didnt agree with its workings, but then Ive spent the least time working with it out aof all the apps here. Steep learning curve indeed.
Cinema 4D - Brilliant! Easy to pick up, and I was creating things that took twice as long to do in Maya. Gets my vote...
NB - Any of these apps are great, and ALL will deliver amazing results, its the interface and woking you feel comfortable with. And dont hang around in bryce too long, you get lazy, like me.
best,
------------------ Please recycle your pixels. (url="http://"http://www.AmbrosiaSW.com/webboard/Forum9/HTML/003196.html")Plug-in Recruitment List(/url)
(This message has been edited by Legion (edited 07-30-2003).)
Just found out that professionals (at ILM, Pixar, etc) like Maya more than the average Joe because they have professional engineers who rewrite the program to make it work properly. As said rewrites are not publically available, the rest of us have to work with a program that has many annoying flaws.
The nice thing about Lightwave's layer oriented modeling is that as objects aren't the basic unit of construction, adding and deleting polygons is a cinch, and stitching new polygon sets into another (say if you make the ear of a character separately from the rest of the head) is easy and painless. SoftImage is somewhat of a melding, where polys can be stitched together (although I've long since forgotten how, and when I learned the program, I wasn't good enough to use it anyway). Maya's poly modeling just sucks. If you make your ear separately from the head, you have to run around in circles to get them together. First you have to put the objects into a group, so they're treated like a single object, then you have to convert to subdivision surfaces so that you can sew the two separate objects into one homogenous object, and then convert back to polygons if you want to keep editing the object in polygon mode. One mess of a headache. In Lightwave, simply put the two objects into one layer, weld polys, delete the extraneous polys, and done. Press tab if you want to use subdivision surfaces. Quite a difference, and that's why I've had to work so damn hard on my head project. I had to keep starting over, changing the process so that I wouldn't trap myself. Bah.. And the damn thing is due tomorrow, so if you'll excuse me, I've got to get back to work.
Dunno what you guys are muttering about LightWave not having NURBs. I've been using non-uniform rational b-splines in LightWave for years... since version 5.6.
The Polaris Dragon, Cambrian and Manta, to name a few, are all weight-mapped NURBs (or, more accurately, MetaNURBs).
all the best,
Dave
Zombat-Ah, so basically it's just another name for grouping? I see now. I'd be in tears if I couldn't do that in Mech, it's one of the best methods for complex modelling. I've just never heard it called layer-oriented modelling.
Originally posted by nwa728: **Zombat-Ah, so basically it's just another name for grouping? I see now. I'd be in tears if I couldn't do that in Mech, it's one of the best methods for complex modelling. I've just never heard it called layer-oriented modelling.
**
it's better than that.
Its ages better than that, nwa. Its quite hard to explain, but essentially, its llike layers in photoshop, only in 3d, for object creation and polygonal editing. Plus, it allows a single object file to be loaded, while having layers that can be moved separately. If you wanted to, you could have a whole scene as one object file. In the newer versions of lightwave, you can have an infinite number of layers, allowing you to cut your objects up to save computer memory.
Here. I made some images involving my Fed Cruiser.
warning: 100-125k in size (url="http://"http://zombat.roosteredge.com/lightwave1.jpg")http://zombat.rooste.../lightwave1.jpg(/url) (url="http://"http://zombat.roosteredge.com/lightwave2.jpg")http://zombat.rooste.../lightwave2.jpg(/url)
pipeline - dunno where you read that ... metaNURBS are essential in my modeling process as well.
Originally posted by Admiral Zombat: pipeline - dunno where you read that ... metaNURBS are essential in my modeling process as well.
In this very thread, sir. Read up a little.
Originally posted by Admiral Zombat: ** pipeline - dunno where you read that ... metaNURBS are essential in my modeling process as well. **
Actually, I was the one that said that Lightwave doesn't have NURBS, and it doesn't have true NURBS surfaces. What Lightwave calls "metaNURBS," are actually a variation of subdivision surfaces, which are far better than NURBS anyway. For what_is_the_matrix's metaNURBS pop quiz, (url="http://"http://www.evula.org/virtualgoo/images/cubes.jpg")click here(/url).
A true NURBS surface is basically a rectangular NURBS sheet that has been pushed and pulled into the shape that you want. Want a sphere? Tough. You get something that looks like a sphere, but actually is a rectangle that has been mystically formed into the shape of a sphere ((url="http://"http://www.evula.org/virtualgoo/images/nurbs1.jpg")Diagram(/url). Cube? Not a cube, just simply six NURBS surfaces in the shape of a cube. Torus? Actually, a torus can be a closed surface: roll the NURBS surface into a tube (sew edges), and curve that tube around into your torus (and sew edges again). (url="http://"http://www.evula.org/virtualgoo/images/nurbs2.jpg")NURBS is an ugly beast, and a pain in the a** to work with.(/url) <-- warning: largish image
(This message has been edited by what_is_the_matrix (edited 08-01-2003).)
Originally posted by what_is_the_matrix: Actually, I was the one that said that Lightwave doesn't have NURBS, and it doesn't have true NURBS surfaces. What Lightwave calls "metaNURBS," are actually a variation of subdivision surfaces, which are far better than NURBS anyway.
Oho. Thanks for clearing that up. Yup, metaNURBS seems far superior to both Maya subpatch surfaces and NURBS. Having used all three now, I think I'll have a hard time in Maya.
Originally posted by pipeline: **Yup, metaNURBS seems far superior to both Maya subpatch surfaces and NURBS. Having used all three now, I think I'll have a hard time in Maya.:)
Dave**
That's because Maya's subdivision surfaces are currently sucky. They've just realized that the community is moving away from NURBS and towards polygon/subdivision surface modeling, and are scrambling to catch up, so currently, their subdivision surfaces are not really working. I think we'll have to wait for the next Maya release. Until then, we have Lightwave and SoftImage.
Man this has got to be the 100th or so topic about getting a Lightwave demo, because you all seem to be Google incapable i'll tell you how to do it step by step.
Step 1: Go to (url="http://"http://www.google.com/")http://www.google.com/(/url) Step 2: Enter the following into the search field: "Lightwave Discovery Edition" Step 3: Click on the first result Step 4: Wait for awhile Step 5: Install the software and enjoy it!!! Step 6: There is no step 6 Step 7: If you're crazy and you read my disection of a Google search you will now find a link to the order form (url="http://"http://www.newtek.com/discovery.html")here(/url), it's all free by the way.
------------------ The Evil Spoonman - I Am Everywhere, I Know All Albatross!!! "Life is to important to be taken seriously." "If there was such thing as normal, even the plauge would avoid it." - The Evil Spoonman
Hate to tell you this, but I tried that, and the demo is no longer being distributed by mail.