Warchyld@Posted: Tue May 31, 2005 8:04 pm Post subject: More Lightwave Smoothing Concerns: I have a model in LW with 3 different surfaces, because I need 3 different smoothing values. They all use the same texture
Now, I can't name them all the same thing in LW.... which it appears I need to do in order to use the same texture within doom
Is there away I can have three differently named surfaces use the same texture within doom?
maybe if there was a wildcard type of deal like:
models/mapobjects/airlock/airlockbrace
models/mapobjects/airlock/airlockbr*
models/mapobjects/airlock/airlockb*
Then I could name my surfaces different things, but still use the same texture in LW.
(I also want to stay away from unwelding vertices for the sake of smoothing, it's bad practice )
*** NOTE
before we get into a lightwave bashing session, yes I know that it sucks the way lightwaves smoothing works, and yes I know that going through max or another package for smoothing would work fine. Infact, I had to go from Lightwave -> Max on a commercial project using Unreal Engine, just because of the smoothing issue. (and vertex painting)
I would be doing this again, however there are two reasons why I don't want to go through max.
1. I own Lightwave, I do not own Max.
2. Going through 2 modeling packages kills your workflow and speed.
Thanks in advance for any help. Doom3world is an awesome resource! |
oDDity@Posted: Tue May 31, 2005 9:13 pm Post subject: : You just give them three different names, it doesn't matter what you call them and copy and paste the shader for each one, just changing the name to your lightwave surface names.
..and you forgot reason three why you won't be using Max - because it sucks compared to Lightwave modeler.
_________________
Civillisation will not attain perfection until the last stone, from the last church, falls on the last priest.
- Emil Zola
character models site |
parsonsbear@Posted: Tue May 31, 2005 9:56 pm Post subject: : Not to go too far off topic, but what's the big deal about lightwave? Your models speak for themselves, so I trust you know what you're talking about. I've had a good run of things with maya, as long as you add MJPolyTools to the mix.
Is it a workflow thing? Are edgeloops easier? The lightwave interface looks a little daunting. After labouring over ZBrush I'm not looking forward to learning yet another interface, but if it's worth it... |
elroacho@Posted: Wed Jun 01, 2005 2:33 am Post subject: : | Quote: | | Is there away I can have three differently named surfaces use the same texture within doom? |
if you open the surface properties, it lists the shader name for each surface. and you apply smoothing on a shader/surface basis. so i don't understand either how you could split up what get's smoothed without multiple shaders that are the same but with different names.
i've setteled for multiple shaders with the same parameters to achive the smoothing i want. i'm all ears for an easier way.
btw, i like LW's layout better than 3ds Max for some reason. but i like 3ds Max grid much beter than LW's. it's a toss up, neither is perfect. plus editing an ase to correct the shader path everytime a change is made drives me nuts. |
oDDity@Posted: Wed Jun 01, 2005 7:57 am Post subject: : | parsonsbear wrote: | Not to go too far off topic, but what's the big deal about lightwave? Your models speak for themselves, so I trust you know what you're talking about. I've had a good run of things with maya, as long as you add MJPolyTools to the mix.
Is it a workflow thing? Are edgeloops easier? The lightwave interface looks a little daunting. After labouring over ZBrush I'm not looking forward to learning yet another interface, but if it's worth it... |
What do you mean' the interface looks daunting'? It has rows of button with text written on them telling you what they're for. I'd ban icons in apps if I could.
I think speed is lightwave's main asset, a lightwave guru could make a given model faster than a guru in any other app. There are no shitty manipulator handles to get in the way, and tools take their center point from where ever your mouse is, not like Maya where you have to hit the insert key and drag the manipulator handle around. You don't have to select points before you move them, there are tools like drag, magnet dragnet etc so you can sculpt a model in subpatch mode, it's so easy to take a generic template head and sculpt it into something completely different in no time - and there is just generally dozens of litle tools that make life easy and make modeling so intuitive. I'm sure a lot of it is do so with the fact that lightwave model is just a modeler, not like all other 3d apps, where the modleing happens in the same space and interface as everyting else the app can do. Modeler is dedicated entirely to modeling.
Of course, some of this is due to the fact I've been using it for 2 years and have the hotkeys memorized and laid out the way I want them, and know every single tool, what it does and when to use it most efficently. When I'm modeling I don't even have to think about which tool or key to hit next, it just happens, so nothing interupts my flow of modeling. I am biased, yes)
_________________
Civillisation will not attain perfection until the last stone, from the last church, falls on the last priest.
- Emil Zola
character models site |
Warchyld@Posted: Fri Jun 03, 2005 12:07 am Post subject: : | Quote: | You just give them three different names, it doesn't matter what you call them and copy and paste the shader for each one, just changing the name to your lightwave surface names.
..and you forgot reason three why you won't be using Max - because it sucks compared to Lightwave modeler. |
ugh, I am reeling in my stupidity, I wasnt thinking in terms of materials, only textures.
Thank you, I will just create new materials for each named surface. |
binaryc@Posted: Fri Jun 03, 2005 12:26 am Post subject: : fwiw, Modo is the best modelling tool ever:
http://www.luxology.com/modo/ |
parsonsbear@Posted: Fri Jun 03, 2005 6:55 am Post subject: : What's so good about modo? The website lists all the senior engineers as former Lightwave programmers, so I guess that means it's better than lightwave ? 
This is my favorite line from the site:
"modo helps artists steer clear of the âValley of Painâ that is a part of the learning curve in so many applications."
Zbrush has a 'valley of pain' like the grand canyon. It does cook an insane amount of detail though. If only Maya's built in artisan tools were as capable... |
1eyed@Posted: Fri Jun 03, 2005 7:41 am Post subject: : don't forget XSI Foundation www.softimage.com and Silo http://www.nevercenter.com/  You can get both for the price of a modo license |
oDDity@Posted: Fri Jun 03, 2005 8:28 am Post subject: : Modo is good, but it's not so much better hat Lightwave that it's worth the time or money to switch to it for someone who is already a Lightwave Expert. The reward would be minimal.
It was not desgned for lightwave users since it makes a big deal out its n-gons and subDs, neither of which are compatable with lightwave.
It's a great choice of modeler for Maya users though.
_________________
Civillisation will not attain perfection until the last stone, from the last church, falls on the last priest.
- Emil Zola
character models site |
Warchyld@Posted: Tue May 31, 2005 8:04 pm Post subject: More Lightwave Smoothing Concerns: I have a model in LW with 3 different surfaces, because I need 3 different smoothing values. They all use the same texture
Now, I can't name them all the same thing in LW.... which it appears I need to do in order to use the same texture within doom
Is there away I can have three differently named surfaces use the same texture within doom?
maybe if there was a wildcard type of deal like:
models/mapobjects/airlock/airlockbrace
models/mapobjects/airlock/airlockbr*
models/mapobjects/airlock/airlockb*
Then I could name my surfaces different things, but still use the same texture in LW.
(I also want to stay away from unwelding vertices for the sake of smoothing, it's bad practice )
*** NOTE
before we get into a lightwave bashing session, yes I know that it sucks the way lightwaves smoothing works, and yes I know that going through max or another package for smoothing would work fine. Infact, I had to go from Lightwave -> Max on a commercial project using Unreal Engine, just because of the smoothing issue. (and vertex painting)
I would be doing this again, however there are two reasons why I don't want to go through max.
1. I own Lightwave, I do not own Max.
2. Going through 2 modeling packages kills your workflow and speed.
Thanks in advance for any help. Doom3world is an awesome resource! |
oDDity@Posted: Tue May 31, 2005 9:13 pm Post subject: : You just give them three different names, it doesn't matter what you call them and copy and paste the shader for each one, just changing the name to your lightwave surface names.
..and you forgot reason three why you won't be using Max - because it sucks compared to Lightwave modeler.
_________________
Civillisation will not attain perfection until the last stone, from the last church, falls on the last priest.
- Emil Zola
character models site |
parsonsbear@Posted: Tue May 31, 2005 9:56 pm Post subject: : Not to go too far off topic, but what's the big deal about lightwave? Your models speak for themselves, so I trust you know what you're talking about. I've had a good run of things with maya, as long as you add MJPolyTools to the mix.
Is it a workflow thing? Are edgeloops easier? The lightwave interface looks a little daunting. After labouring over ZBrush I'm not looking forward to learning yet another interface, but if it's worth it... |
elroacho@Posted: Wed Jun 01, 2005 2:33 am Post subject: : | Quote: | | Is there away I can have three differently named surfaces use the same texture within doom? |
if you open the surface properties, it lists the shader name for each surface. and you apply smoothing on a shader/surface basis. so i don't understand either how you could split up what get's smoothed without multiple shaders that are the same but with different names.
i've setteled for multiple shaders with the same parameters to achive the smoothing i want. i'm all ears for an easier way.
btw, i like LW's layout better than 3ds Max for some reason. but i like 3ds Max grid much beter than LW's. it's a toss up, neither is perfect. plus editing an ase to correct the shader path everytime a change is made drives me nuts. |
oDDity@Posted: Wed Jun 01, 2005 7:57 am Post subject: : | parsonsbear wrote: | Not to go too far off topic, but what's the big deal about lightwave? Your models speak for themselves, so I trust you know what you're talking about. I've had a good run of things with maya, as long as you add MJPolyTools to the mix.
Is it a workflow thing? Are edgeloops easier? The lightwave interface looks a little daunting. After labouring over ZBrush I'm not looking forward to learning yet another interface, but if it's worth it... |
What do you mean' the interface looks daunting'? It has rows of button with text written on them telling you what they're for. I'd ban icons in apps if I could.
I think speed is lightwave's main asset, a lightwave guru could make a given model faster than a guru in any other app. There are no shitty manipulator handles to get in the way, and tools take their center point from where ever your mouse is, not like Maya where you have to hit the insert key and drag the manipulator handle around. You don't have to select points before you move them, there are tools like drag, magnet dragnet etc so you can sculpt a model in subpatch mode, it's so easy to take a generic template head and sculpt it into something completely different in no time - and there is just generally dozens of litle tools that make life easy and make modeling so intuitive. I'm sure a lot of it is do so with the fact that lightwave model is just a modeler, not like all other 3d apps, where the modleing happens in the same space and interface as everyting else the app can do. Modeler is dedicated entirely to modeling.
Of course, some of this is due to the fact I've been using it for 2 years and have the hotkeys memorized and laid out the way I want them, and know every single tool, what it does and when to use it most efficently. When I'm modeling I don't even have to think about which tool or key to hit next, it just happens, so nothing interupts my flow of modeling. I am biased, yes)
_________________
Civillisation will not attain perfection until the last stone, from the last church, falls on the last priest.
- Emil Zola
character models site |
Warchyld@Posted: Fri Jun 03, 2005 12:07 am Post subject: : | Quote: | You just give them three different names, it doesn't matter what you call them and copy and paste the shader for each one, just changing the name to your lightwave surface names.
..and you forgot reason three why you won't be using Max - because it sucks compared to Lightwave modeler. |
ugh, I am reeling in my stupidity, I wasnt thinking in terms of materials, only textures.
Thank you, I will just create new materials for each named surface. |
binaryc@Posted: Fri Jun 03, 2005 12:26 am Post subject: : fwiw, Modo is the best modelling tool ever:
http://www.luxology.com/modo/ |
parsonsbear@Posted: Fri Jun 03, 2005 6:55 am Post subject: : What's so good about modo? The website lists all the senior engineers as former Lightwave programmers, so I guess that means it's better than lightwave ? 
This is my favorite line from the site:
"modo helps artists steer clear of the âValley of Painâ that is a part of the learning curve in so many applications."
Zbrush has a 'valley of pain' like the grand canyon. It does cook an insane amount of detail though. If only Maya's built in artisan tools were as capable... |
1eyed@Posted: Fri Jun 03, 2005 7:41 am Post subject: : don't forget XSI Foundation www.softimage.com and Silo http://www.nevercenter.com/  You can get both for the price of a modo license |
oDDity@Posted: Fri Jun 03, 2005 8:28 am Post subject: : Modo is good, but it's not so much better hat Lightwave that it's worth the time or money to switch to it for someone who is already a Lightwave Expert. The reward would be minimal.
It was not desgned for lightwave users since it makes a big deal out its n-gons and subDs, neither of which are compatable with lightwave.
It's a great choice of modeler for Maya users though.
_________________
Civillisation will not attain perfection until the last stone, from the last church, falls on the last priest.
- Emil Zola
character models site |