I think you are underestimating how important scripting and addons are to Modo game artists. No substances even? Does it even have the baking UI toolkit? Come on! This is not some luxury that should be reserved for the top-end product... it is an necessity.
Woah woah woah, no substances? That's just messed up.
Hm, interesting reading about these indie version, but as far as Modo is concerned, I'm looking into the possibility of getting the full version, especially with the 40% off sale coming up, though I think i'll leave Mari alone, I already have Substance Indie Pack in my steam library, and while i have no doubt that Mari is very good, TF's licensing policy in regards to transferring Mari/Nuke/Ketana/ect licenses in the case of a system upgrade/failiure (which has happened to me in the past) and the steps you have to go through, seem a bit...lengthy. Thankfully, Modo is still using the old system, for the moment.
As for a possible solution The Foundry could use to solve the issue of distinguishing between indie and commercial versions if the indie was as full featured as the full version is simple:
Back when Maya was still owned and developed by Alias, they had a PLE version, that had no export limitations in regards to poly count, no scripting limitations (I think, been nearly a decade since i tried it), but what it did have was an arbitrary file format that regular maya couldn't open, it's viewport and renders were also watermarked with the Alias logo.
Maybe thats something you guys can consider. Add back in everything (or nearly everything) that full Modo has, but implement viewport and render output watermarking, and arbitrary file formats.
Hm, interesting reading about these indie version, but as far as Modo is concerned, I'm looking into the possibility of getting the full version, especially with the 40% off sale coming up, though I think i'll leave Mari alone, I already have Substance Indie Pack in my steam library, and while i have no doubt that Mari is very good, TF's licensing policy in regards to transferring Mari/Nuke/Ketana/ect licenses in the case of a system upgrade/failiure (which has happened to me in the past) and the steps you have to go through, seem a bit...lengthy. Thankfully, Modo is still using the old system, for the moment.
As for a possible solution The Foundry could use to solve the issue of distinguishing between indie and commercial versions if the indie was as full featured as the full version is simple:
Back when Maya was still owned and developed by Alias, they had a PLE version, that had no export limitations in regards to poly count, no scripting limitations (I think, been nearly a decade since i tried it), but what it did have was an arbitrary file format that regular maya couldn't open, it's viewport and renders were also watermarked with the Alias logo.
Maybe thats something you guys can consider. Add back in everything (or nearly everything) that full Modo has, but implement viewport and render output watermarking, and arbitrary file formats.
Whoa, sweet baby Jesus, NO!
That would make it completely unusable for any actual work. It'd be a freakin' $300 demo.
H
As for a possible solution The Foundry could use to solve the issue of distinguishing between indie and commercial versions if the indie was as full featured as the full version is simple:
I guess the difference is that we believe Indie should be commercial. People should be free to earn money (ideally lots of money) with the tools they buy.
We can look at more not for commercial use PLE versions (Nuke is about to get a free PLE version), but at the moment we see those differently from Indie.
For us, Indie is individuals or small groups using our tools to do real work outside of the standard business / corporate system. It's about people making things beyond the models / textures / animations themselves.
I'd love to see hugely successful projects on Steam, Apple Store, Youtube, wherever using our Indie versions. When you make your first million please send us a postcard though.
I guess I need to add a new playlist in Digital Tutors for Mari. That's a no brainer for me to get.
I've owned Modo 701 for awhile now but I was initially turned off at the lack of videos at the time (you had to pay for them thru luxology and DT wasn't making any new ones). So I got invested in Maya and now that I'm used to it that's what I'm sticking with. I try Modo now and then but the approach is so different, to me at least, that I always go back to Maya.
So I got invested in Maya and now that I'm used to it that's what I'm sticking with. I try Modo now and then but the approach is so different, to me at least, that I always go back to Maya.
The approach seems different but after using both you might find its really not all that different at all. I would say the biggest difference is how you look at the shader tree and how mesh layers work, but thats it. At the end of the day, they are just layers with objects in a scene, and theres a layer system in maya for grouping and hiding objects as well as setting up what gets rendered.
Not all that far apart really.
Both apps use the "right tool for the right job" approach, not modifier stacks or any of that. Just grab a tool, and apply. By default, Modo wants you to drop the tool when you are done with it, Maya does so automatically. You can set Modo to do the same if you wish.
Tool behavior and effect in Maya is over to the right, alongside the attribute editor and all that. Tool behavior and effects in Modo is by default lower left.
Action center menu is basically where we define how the transform widget will be and behave, in Maya, we unlock it with D and snap it with some combo of x,c,v...ect, Modo you just click where you want it and toggle on snapping if you want it to snap. Maya has object mode and mesh edit mode, Modo's component mode (vert, edge, poly) is the edit mode, and its item mode is like the object mode.
To really see the similarity, just tell Modo under preferences to use the Maya navigation method (or even controls), turn off track ball rotation and you should feel right at home, only you have far more tools than maya does, a dedicated retopology workspace, sculpting capability (good for just abusing verts), fairly solid texture painting tools and an excellent semi sentient UV tab. Not bad eh?
This is a quick video showing the texture transfer function in Mari. This will work whatever your source and output UV layout is. One of the really cool things is that it will transfer all of the layers of your paint, not just the result.
As Mari Indie can read and write PSD files from Photoshop you could actually use this to transfer a layered texture you've painted in Photoshop, while maintaining the layer stack and masks.
Another cool thing is that you could start painting on a model without any UV's at all and then transfer to a UV version when're they're done.
I downloaded the Modo Trial today, started it, and immediately was reminded that I currently just don't have the patience to learn a new moddeling tool. It would take me sooo long the get to the level at which I know blender and work without without thinking about which buttons I press etc.. That's exactly how it went down last time I tried the 501 Trial version. It's not Modo's fault, it's just that I am so fimiliar with blender that anything else feels weird.
The main thing that got me interested in it was the round edges shader for baking normalmaps. Seems like a great potential timesaver for hard-surface modelling.
Then I thought I could just get Modo Indie and use it ONLY for that feature, so basically as a glorified bake tool. But then I saw the 4k Bake resolution limit and thought "why even bother, it's pointless if it can't go beyond 4k and I'm not gonna pay the full price to just bake maps with it". Any chance you might get rid of the baking resolution cap? I kinda understand the cap on image rendering. I could see how it would still be useful for portfolio work and web based stuff with that limitation in place. But I feel if you put a 4k Limit on baking I couldn't really use it for freelancing because 8k resolution for textures doesn't seem like a rediculously rare request to me.
Or am I wrong?
Could anyone do a quick Mari vs Substance Painter? After reading all this thread I still have issues deciding if there's actually anything Mari can do that I cannot already do with SP...
As others I would probably have given Modo a go but no script support is not acceptable.
2 Patches means you can assign 2 unique sets of 4k textures to each object. You can have as many UV islands as you like, one per face if that's your thing.
This is the equivalent number of pixels as using 8k x 4k maps per object across all 3 objects.
You can have as many channels or layers as you like per object also.
If it doesn't support scripting, then I doubt it, as the Goz feature relies on a script. And Maya LT doesn't support GoZ either, as the features of MEL that script needs are not supported in LT
Jack, You mentioned on steam that you aren't aware of other apps in this segment that allow for multi-UDIM painting. You are actually incorrect about 3D-Coat. Just so that you know what you are up against, here is an example from the PBR alpha build of 3D-Coat. This is one object, one layer, one brush stroke and 8 4K UDIMS! I can paint all 4 PBR channels with one brush stroke, on one layer fluidly across 8 4K patches. Mari indie cannot do this. And I cannot stress the workflow side of this enough. The material-centric workflow is fast, powerful, and simple to use and understand.
Jack, You mentioned on steam that you aren't aware of other apps in this segment that allow for multi-UDIM painting. You are actually incorrect about 3D-Coat. Just so that you know what you are up against, here is an example from the PBR alpha build of 3D-Coat. This is one object, one layer, one brush stroke and 8 4K UDIMS! I can paint all 4 PBR channels with one brush stroke, on one layer fluidly across 8 4K patches. Mari indie cannot do this. And I cannot stress the workflow side of this enough. The material-centric workflow is fast, powerful, and simple to use and understand.
Jgreasly, is it acceptable to post Mari feedback (full/demo version) on the Steam forum of the indie version ? I just want to provide feedback from a indie and game dev perspective, but without having to commit to a purchase.
Jgreasly, is it acceptable to post Mari feedback (full/demo version) on the Steam forum of the indie version ? I just want to provide feedback from a indie and game dev perspective, but without having to commit to a purchase.
You can choose any bit depth that you want, as long as it's 8.
Where did you get that 8bit limitation? I haven't seen that written anywhere myself. FAQ clearly tells that MARI indie has such limitation, but nothing mentioned about that on MODO indie features itself (unless I've missed it somehow).
MODO indie for sure lets me select 16bit TIF (or even 32bit exr) for normal map baking. Unfortunately, MODO indie keeps crashing to desktop constantly on my computer, I couldn't save the normal bake as it crashes before that, but baking itself starts and ends just fine on selected 16bit texture.
Crashing is actually pretty terrible, anyone else have it happening? I don't even have to do anything on Modo. It's enough if it's just open in the background and it just crashes randomly (also crashes if I try to save project with specific content), I guess I should contact support..
Hmm, I stand corrected. I confused Mari and Modo because they both start with M. That's one of my biggest qualms with Modo Indie out the window, then. I'd be able to get flawless normal map bakes out of it, even with the export limit, then, by baking world-space normals and converting them to tangent-space with Handplane or Xnormal. Interesting.
I don't actually have Modo Indie yet because I'm waiting to hear if The Foundry is going to do something about scripts, so I apologize for spreading misinformation.
Even if there is an 8-bit limitation, bit depth is much less of an issue with object space maps than it is with tangent. In general, 8 bit OS maps should be plenty, as OS maps use a much broader data range.
Hey, first of all I just wanna say that I think this is a great step in the right direction.
Just curious as to how Modo Indie handles unit/scale and such when exporting to UE4, Unity or other engines? I had a look around for regular Modo and apparently there's some rescaling needed or scripts that do the rescaling for you before you export. Kinda seems like if your targeting this for Game artists that might be something to look at.
I would be much more keen if it allowed for scripts/scripting, plugins, didn't have the export poly limit. And project file sharing is kind of a must for teams and even freelancers, especially if you keep the poly limit.
I'd be able to get flawless normal map bakes out of it, even with the export limit, then, by baking world-space normals and converting them to tangent-space with Handplane or Xnormal. Interesting.
Only if you never ever need more than a 4k resolution bake.
Just curious as to how Modo Indie handles unit/scale and such when exporting to UE4, Unity or other engines? I had a look around for regular Modo and apparently there's some rescaling needed or scripts that do the rescaling for you before you export. Kinda seems like if your targeting this for Game artists that might be something to look at.
For UE4, just set it to centimeters and you should be fine. UE4 is real world scale.
Could anyone do a quick Mari vs Substance Painter? After reading all this thread I still have issues deciding if there's actually anything Mari can do that I cannot already do with SP...
Basically, MARI is a lot more advanced and gives you more options, but it's not as streamlined as SP.
One example I can give you (mind you, I am not super experienced with SP) is masking. In Mari, you can assign channels as masks for anything, which basically means you have the equivalent of an entire PSD with as many layers as you want, and the result is a mask that is instanced in real-time onto any other layer, layer group or channel.
When creating material "fill layers" in SP, what I found that you can do either a single hand-painted b/w layer as mask for a material, or a procedural edgewear mask, plus maybe a combination of the two. But I didn't find a way to build a proper, fully adjustable layerstack with levels adjustments, AO influence etc for a mask stack.
Having the options MARI offers lends itself very well to a material-based workflow, where you set up different materials as a stack and paint non-destructively in the masks.
The big catch is that setting up something like this in MARI is a lot of manual work, and not having python script support in the indie version means you have to do it all by yourself, which is a huge timesink. MARI doesn't offer a convenient material based workflow out of the box, while SP does.
If you're interested, I am currently doing this in MARI with a script-based material stack workflow: http://vimeo.com/114397279 and most of the newer stuff in my portfolio has been done with the same workflow.
Does anyone know what kind of clone-stamp or healing brush featurs Mari/SubstancePainter/3D-Coat have to fix up seams between UV islands on a model textured in DDO?
Does anyone know what kind of clone-stamp or healing brush featurs Mari/SubstancePainter/3D-Coat have to fix up seams between UV islands on a model textured in DDO?
The clone stamp and healing brush in Mari were written for (almost) exactly this purpose, so yes.
One thing to note is that if you're painting in 3D Mari should never produce seams. You can paint on polygon soup if you like and it won't cause any problems.
Two things are keeping me away from Modo (actually a lot more than two things but this is non-technical specific):
1. The lack of assurance as to whether or not Foundry may go subscription-only at some point. I do not like paying rent for software out of principle.
2. http://www.thedrum.com/news/2014/12/15/special-effects-company-foundry-expected-sell-200m - So the foundry is looking for a new owner? Not only do I do not like paying rent, I also dislike uncertainty. It's not about the money so much as the time investment one puts in to master a program only to discover that investment was for naught - Softimage users know this full well. The last thing I want to do is worry about what will become of my chosen package when its development company is sold off. Whose the buyer anyway?
1. The lack of assurance as to whether or not Foundry may go subscription-only at some point. I do not like paying rent for software out of principle.
Hi,
Mari and Modo Indie is the only software we have that has any subscription option. This is in addition to outright purchase. We're committed to giving people more options not less.
In the last two years we've added more ways of owning our software rather than removing them.
I'm sorry if this doesn't reassure you. Across our software range you can choose to buy outright, rent, trial for free, have node locked, floating, Steam purchase, Apple Store or choose a subscription model if you like.
We're also about to add a Free for non commercial usage version of Nuke.
The clone stamp and healing brush in Mari were written for (almost) exactly this purpose, so yes.
One thing to note is that if you're painting in 3D Mari should never produce seams. You can paint on polygon soup if you like and it won't cause any problems.
That sounds wonderful and makes a compelling reason to try out Mari!
Does this also work across the different maps/layers (don't know what it is called in Mari) of a PBR material in a single stroke or do I have to edit each map/layer individually?
That sounds wonderful and makes a compelling reason to try out Mari!
Does this also work across the different maps/layers (don't know what it is called in Mari) of a PBR material in a single stroke or do I have to edit each map/layer individually?
At the moment the basic workflow would be per channel. (Diffuse, Spec, Bump etc).
Although there are some advanced workflows that could use channel sharing / linking which updates multiple channels at one.
We're certainly listening to the feedback about Multi-layer workflows.
Yeah that's worrying a lot of Foundry users at this point. It certainly puts a hamper on the current appeal in getting a license or upgrading until we know who takes over. Wishing Luxology stated independent at this point, but lets wait and see what happens first.
Yeah that's worrying a lot of Foundry users at this point.
I'll only get worried if Autodesk ends up being the new owners. Otherwise, it doesn't really bother me. Even if there's no suitable buyers that emerges in 2015 Carlyle Group wont let The Foundry products just idle and loose value for their next round of buyer hunting. Modo 901 must happen as expected.
I'll only get worried if Autodesk ends up being the new owners. Otherwise, it doesn't really bother me. Even if there's no suitable buyers that emerges in 2015 Carlyle Group wont let The Foundry products just idle and loose value for their next round of buyer hunting. Modo 901 must happen as expected.
Really liking modo so far, in fact I would goas far to say that the basic modeling tools are amazing.
One thing I don't like is how model navigation works, I think zbrush has this the best. I also seem to get a lot of holes in my models when they should be symmetrical doing various editing, this one has been a major annoyance.
Also if Autodesk buys the foundry I will consider not using their products out of principle. I truly believe they(Autodesk) are a cancer upon the 3d modeling industry and hate everything about them.
One thing I don't like is how model navigation works
You might prefer Trackball Rotation set to off (But I recommend trying it for awhile; it's quite a good system). To toggle it off press O to open the viewport controls and under Drawing and Control tab > 3D mouse and set Trackball Rotation to off. You might also prefer Orbit selected to be enabled; something to try anyway.
Replies
There's probably a better way to do it, though. The export limitations seem unnecessary in the first place to me.
Woah woah woah, no substances? That's just messed up.
As for a possible solution The Foundry could use to solve the issue of distinguishing between indie and commercial versions if the indie was as full featured as the full version is simple:
Back when Maya was still owned and developed by Alias, they had a PLE version, that had no export limitations in regards to poly count, no scripting limitations (I think, been nearly a decade since i tried it), but what it did have was an arbitrary file format that regular maya couldn't open, it's viewport and renders were also watermarked with the Alias logo.
Maybe thats something you guys can consider. Add back in everything (or nearly everything) that full Modo has, but implement viewport and render output watermarking, and arbitrary file formats.
That would make it completely unusable for any actual work. It'd be a freakin' $300 demo.
I guess the difference is that we believe Indie should be commercial. People should be free to earn money (ideally lots of money) with the tools they buy.
We can look at more not for commercial use PLE versions (Nuke is about to get a free PLE version), but at the moment we see those differently from Indie.
For us, Indie is individuals or small groups using our tools to do real work outside of the standard business / corporate system. It's about people making things beyond the models / textures / animations themselves.
I'd love to see hugely successful projects on Steam, Apple Store, Youtube, wherever using our Indie versions. When you make your first million please send us a postcard though.
Some fun stuff Felix is doing with a full version of Mari.
I've owned Modo 701 for awhile now but I was initially turned off at the lack of videos at the time (you had to pay for them thru luxology and DT wasn't making any new ones). So I got invested in Maya and now that I'm used to it that's what I'm sticking with. I try Modo now and then but the approach is so different, to me at least, that I always go back to Maya.
The approach seems different but after using both you might find its really not all that different at all. I would say the biggest difference is how you look at the shader tree and how mesh layers work, but thats it. At the end of the day, they are just layers with objects in a scene, and theres a layer system in maya for grouping and hiding objects as well as setting up what gets rendered.
Not all that far apart really.
Both apps use the "right tool for the right job" approach, not modifier stacks or any of that. Just grab a tool, and apply. By default, Modo wants you to drop the tool when you are done with it, Maya does so automatically. You can set Modo to do the same if you wish.
Tool behavior and effect in Maya is over to the right, alongside the attribute editor and all that. Tool behavior and effects in Modo is by default lower left.
Action center menu is basically where we define how the transform widget will be and behave, in Maya, we unlock it with D and snap it with some combo of x,c,v...ect, Modo you just click where you want it and toggle on snapping if you want it to snap. Maya has object mode and mesh edit mode, Modo's component mode (vert, edge, poly) is the edit mode, and its item mode is like the object mode.
To really see the similarity, just tell Modo under preferences to use the Maya navigation method (or even controls), turn off track ball rotation and you should feel right at home, only you have far more tools than maya does, a dedicated retopology workspace, sculpting capability (good for just abusing verts), fairly solid texture painting tools and an excellent semi sentient UV tab. Not bad eh?
Cheers
This is a quick video showing the texture transfer function in Mari. This will work whatever your source and output UV layout is. One of the really cool things is that it will transfer all of the layers of your paint, not just the result.
As Mari Indie can read and write PSD files from Photoshop you could actually use this to transfer a layered texture you've painted in Photoshop, while maintaining the layer stack and masks.
Another cool thing is that you could start painting on a model without any UV's at all and then transfer to a UV version when're they're done.
The main thing that got me interested in it was the round edges shader for baking normalmaps. Seems like a great potential timesaver for hard-surface modelling.
Then I thought I could just get Modo Indie and use it ONLY for that feature, so basically as a glorified bake tool. But then I saw the 4k Bake resolution limit and thought "why even bother, it's pointless if it can't go beyond 4k and I'm not gonna pay the full price to just bake maps with it". Any chance you might get rid of the baking resolution cap? I kinda understand the cap on image rendering. I could see how it would still be useful for portfolio work and web based stuff with that limitation in place. But I feel if you put a 4k Limit on baking I couldn't really use it for freelancing because 8k resolution for textures doesn't seem like a rediculously rare request to me.
Or am I wrong?
As others I would probably have given Modo a go but no script support is not acceptable.
When we say "Patches" in Mari land we don't refer to UV islands, we refer to UDIMS (http://www.fxguide.com/featured/udim-uv-mapping/)
2 Patches means you can assign 2 unique sets of 4k textures to each object. You can have as many UV islands as you like, one per face if that's your thing.
This is the equivalent number of pixels as using 8k x 4k maps per object across all 3 objects.
You can have as many channels or layers as you like per object also.
Sorry for any confusion.
Trying to decide between this and Maya LT. Need a fully featured modeling/baking solution that will fit within my workflow with Zbrush.
I may just have to bite the bullet and get a modo full seat during the upcoming sale.
I know the export options are limited a well for textures with Modo INDIE, but do we know if you can choose your bitrate for .tiff? ie. 8 vs 16.
lol.
Not sure if Jack G. prefers direct emails, but they did load up a feedback thread via steam: http://steamcommunity.com/app/289550/discussions/0/35219681594812526/
Cool. Thanks for the heads up.
Of course, any feedback is great.
Where did you get that 8bit limitation? I haven't seen that written anywhere myself. FAQ clearly tells that MARI indie has such limitation, but nothing mentioned about that on MODO indie features itself (unless I've missed it somehow).
MODO indie for sure lets me select 16bit TIF (or even 32bit exr) for normal map baking. Unfortunately, MODO indie keeps crashing to desktop constantly on my computer, I couldn't save the normal bake as it crashes before that, but baking itself starts and ends just fine on selected 16bit texture.
Crashing is actually pretty terrible, anyone else have it happening? I don't even have to do anything on Modo. It's enough if it's just open in the background and it just crashes randomly (also crashes if I try to save project with specific content), I guess I should contact support..
I don't actually have Modo Indie yet because I'm waiting to hear if The Foundry is going to do something about scripts, so I apologize for spreading misinformation.
Just curious as to how Modo Indie handles unit/scale and such when exporting to UE4, Unity or other engines? I had a look around for regular Modo and apparently there's some rescaling needed or scripts that do the rescaling for you before you export. Kinda seems like if your targeting this for Game artists that might be something to look at.
I would be much more keen if it allowed for scripts/scripting, plugins, didn't have the export poly limit. And project file sharing is kind of a must for teams and even freelancers, especially if you keep the poly limit.
Contemplating this or regular 801.
Only if you never ever need more than a 4k resolution bake.
Basically, MARI is a lot more advanced and gives you more options, but it's not as streamlined as SP.
One example I can give you (mind you, I am not super experienced with SP) is masking. In Mari, you can assign channels as masks for anything, which basically means you have the equivalent of an entire PSD with as many layers as you want, and the result is a mask that is instanced in real-time onto any other layer, layer group or channel.
When creating material "fill layers" in SP, what I found that you can do either a single hand-painted b/w layer as mask for a material, or a procedural edgewear mask, plus maybe a combination of the two. But I didn't find a way to build a proper, fully adjustable layerstack with levels adjustments, AO influence etc for a mask stack.
Having the options MARI offers lends itself very well to a material-based workflow, where you set up different materials as a stack and paint non-destructively in the masks.
The big catch is that setting up something like this in MARI is a lot of manual work, and not having python script support in the indie version means you have to do it all by yourself, which is a huge timesink. MARI doesn't offer a convenient material based workflow out of the box, while SP does.
If you're interested, I am currently doing this in MARI with a script-based material stack workflow: http://vimeo.com/114397279 and most of the newer stuff in my portfolio has been done with the same workflow.
The clone stamp and healing brush in Mari were written for (almost) exactly this purpose, so yes.
One thing to note is that if you're painting in 3D Mari should never produce seams. You can paint on polygon soup if you like and it won't cause any problems.
1. The lack of assurance as to whether or not Foundry may go subscription-only at some point. I do not like paying rent for software out of principle.
2. http://www.thedrum.com/news/2014/12/15/special-effects-company-foundry-expected-sell-200m - So the foundry is looking for a new owner? Not only do I do not like paying rent, I also dislike uncertainty. It's not about the money so much as the time investment one puts in to master a program only to discover that investment was for naught - Softimage users know this full well. The last thing I want to do is worry about what will become of my chosen package when its development company is sold off. Whose the buyer anyway?
Hi,
Mari and Modo Indie is the only software we have that has any subscription option. This is in addition to outright purchase. We're committed to giving people more options not less.
In the last two years we've added more ways of owning our software rather than removing them.
I'm sorry if this doesn't reassure you. Across our software range you can choose to buy outright, rent, trial for free, have node locked, floating, Steam purchase, Apple Store or choose a subscription model if you like.
We're also about to add a Free for non commercial usage version of Nuke.
That sounds wonderful and makes a compelling reason to try out Mari!
Does this also work across the different maps/layers (don't know what it is called in Mari) of a PBR material in a single stroke or do I have to edit each map/layer individually?
At the moment the basic workflow would be per channel. (Diffuse, Spec, Bump etc).
Although there are some advanced workflows that could use channel sharing / linking which updates multiple channels at one.
We're certainly listening to the feedback about Multi-layer workflows.
I'm trying to figure out which route to go. I've heard modo's tools are best in class, but I've also heard a lot of that rely's on scripts.
http://www.thedrum.com/news/2014/12/15/special-effects-company-foundry-expected-sell-200m
Yeah that's worrying a lot of Foundry users at this point. It certainly puts a hamper on the current appeal in getting a license or upgrading until we know who takes over. Wishing Luxology stated independent at this point, but lets wait and see what happens first.
I'll only get worried if Autodesk ends up being the new owners. Otherwise, it doesn't really bother me. Even if there's no suitable buyers that emerges in 2015 Carlyle Group wont let The Foundry products just idle and loose value for their next round of buyer hunting. Modo 901 must happen as expected.
if it is Autodesk Modo is done.
One thing I don't like is how model navigation works, I think zbrush has this the best. I also seem to get a lot of holes in my models when they should be symmetrical doing various editing, this one has been a major annoyance.
Also if Autodesk buys the foundry I will consider not using their products out of principle. I truly believe they(Autodesk) are a cancer upon the 3d modeling industry and hate everything about them.
But before, they will improve UI a bit...
VIEW CUUUUUBE ®
Actually a friend of mine appears to be living the dream already.