Hey Everyone,
its hard to do a revenue model since it would be very difficult to track a content creation software to be able to see its use in the assets or final product.
That's exactly the point though: You can't tell if people pirated Modo either.
Your fears seem to be based on big companies buying Modo Indie when they can afford to buy the full Modo, but that's the beauty of Allegorithmic's system: If you buy the indie edition and you don't fit the stipulations (for instance: you earn more than allowed for the indie edition) then you simply don't have a valid license. I've seen plenty of companies that pirated software left and right, that's always going to happen, but if the *entirely* free version is out there and easy to download, what worries you so much about a cheaper, full-featured version?
I try not to speak in absolute but I don't think there's many efficient/fast modelers out there that are not using scripts one way or another.
Yeah; I know I'd struggle to think of a script I'd installed that has made modo worse for example. But on the other hand... I totally get that you have to have enough of a difference between indie and full to justify the existence of the former. It's not a simple issue when everyone wants something different and you HAVE to cut something. No matter what you do someone's going to be left out. Unless you restrict only by revenue earned or something but that's a whole other story.
And it's understandable that scripts didn't make the cut because with indie you still get the core functionality of modo. If some of the more important stuff (Vertex Normal Toolkit) gets integrated with modo then maybe further script functionality can be considered a luxury rightly reserved for full modo editions. And considering 901's script integrations + revelations from this thread it seems likely that we're going to see more script integration in the future; which is awesome. Failing full integration lesser important stuff could perhaps have a whitelist curated by the foundry with community input; know knows. It has been suggested before.
I get it Bek but then if the suits calling the shots really cant allow that angle let them be creative and allow peeps like me to afford the real deal. I'd be okay giving the Foundry 50 bucks/month until I reach the 1600 mark. Heck I'd be okay giving them 200. Hate to repeat myself but Allegorithmics has paved the way for that already. No need to go with a revenue model if it's really too complex. Why is it so hard to give people more options to give money to the foundry...?
Are you perhaps talking about using a hardware passthrough so you can have your guest os (windows) run with great performance? I became aware of this method recently and it gave me the linux bug again; Now I'm wasting time on distrowatch and wondering how feasible it would be really. Because being able to use linux and still whatever windows program I wanted would be rather badass. For anyone curious there's a video outlining the process here (there are some downsides but I'm still keen to give it a go next build).
Yes, that's exactly what I'm talking about. It makes a lot more sense to just run Modo natively though. You don't need to do PCI passthrough to get Zbrush running well.
It's actually more than collaboration ... they've hired him. I expect some great things on the game art side of things moving forward.
Very interesting. So "they" have on their team Sculptris orig dev Tomas Petterson (presumably for ADF sculpting dev work), Taron was a tester, and now Farfarer's on board. Very very interesting.
Just a random thought: It might be better to aim ahead of your competitors rather than be content to catch up to their previous milestones, and simply lift pages from last season's Autodesk playbook.
I actually subbed to Modo indie 901, because I figured that for that price, I could afford to keep it around just for meshFusion. After installing, I created a fusion doodle. When I went to export my fusion mesh to 3D-Coat, it failed. It was over the poly limit. I had forgotten how dense those meshfusion models can get. That's when I realized that my concerns were warranted, and Modo indie fails as a modeler. I then unsubbed in frustration (with myself for wasting $14 when I knew better). This is not a problem that I have with blender or Maya LT. Actually for all intents and purposes, Maya LT has no poly cap. I have a folder at the root of my UE4 project that I export my high poly meshes to. I can then open those FBX files in any other app for baking, sculpting etc. And there is blender, which always treats me like a first-class citizen, and doesn't judge or punish me for being "indie." Both blender and Maya LT have earned a permanent place in my tool chest for different reasons. Blender for being a powerful and innovative modeler, and Maya LT for being a dependable, reliable tool that always just works with all popular game engines. I want Modo indie to succeed, but I just can't figure out why I should make room for it. It doesn't offer me the dependable game engine compatibility of Maya LT, and it is rather limited compared to blender. I bring these other tools into this discussion because they are precisely the reason the reason I gave away my Modo 801 license. There was no way I was going to continue to pay $500 for upgrades, when there are awesome and cheap options for game artists.
Before the zealots jump on me with ad hominem, the Foundry got my $14, so now they can have my 2 cents... even though I have felt for a long time that they want our feedback, but only as long as it is positive. Even this thread is an example of that. In the OP, Brandon specifically asked for feedback regarding scripts, and he got a lot of valuable feedback, but it wasn't the cheerleading he had hoped for, and he became defensive. Brandon, I feel you, man. I know your hands are tied. But the artists of polycount have spoken, and they aren't interested in a stripped-down Modo. There are lots of other options.
I am not trying to mean. Like everyone else, I want you to succeed. Once upon a time, I believed in Luxology.
*braced for the inevitable straw-man attacks from the Modo war pups*
PS. Congrats on removing the DRM from the Modo indie scene files. That was extremely draconian.
Loving Modo Indie so far, glad they relased 901, for only 30 bucks. I come fram a Max/Maya background and I needed something cheap but good for concepts and freelance 3d gigs. Maya LT, Maya and Max are just too expensive for the subscription models. I already pay for Photoshop, Amazon, Netflix, and utility bills who needs a 30 subscription for a limited app on top that?
I bought modo indie for 179 i think and 29.99 for 901. Seems like a great deal to me. I've tried using Blender, especially after seeing Pior going that route but I couldn't get used to the interface. If i stay in modo there is no poly limit so it's great for concepts. I only need to export if end up doing Dota items and 100k is more than enough. If I need more than that i can retopo in topogun or 3d coat. For the price I don't think there is much to complain about.
PS I didn't use a lot scripts in Max either so maybe that has something to do with it.
Doc brings up an interesting point. While i don't find Modo indie attractive for game development, it is probably a good fit for designers and concept artists, and maybe even product renders. Whether or not it is a failed product really depends on what you intend to use it for. And indie, just like it's bigger brother, is a better fit for graphic designers.
I'm actually surprised The Foundry didn't gimp the rendering more since that's Modo's bread and butter. 4k render limitation is not bad at all if you're doing concepts, motion graphics, or animations. Houdini Indie limits rendering at 1080p and it's more expensive than Modo Indie.
In a perfect world Maya, Modo and Max would be as cheap as Zbrush
If i stay in modo there is no poly limit so it's great for concepts. I only need to export if end up doing Dota items and 100k is more than enough.
I thought I'd chime in to clarify this topic a little based on personal experience.
When working on Dota items I sometimes work by myself (design phase + final asset delivery) and sometimes with other artists (providing them a design). In this second scenario I end up having to review high poly sculpts for feedback, and I also collaborate on some later technical steps (retopo, polypaint, and so on). Such highpoly files are usually exchanged as ZTL as it is by far the most appropriate format for that purpose, with OBJ coming close second.
Now if I were to work with a modeler using Modo Indie at its fullest (that is to say creating basemeshes in it but also doing a fair amount of sculpting directly inside Modo and/or even setting up the final highpoly asset as a Modo Indie scene), I would be completely stuck since there would be no way to export the model out of the app without a fair amount of triangle reduction to bring it under 100k. Meaning that it would make the model much harder to review ; and furthermore, bringing that model to other essential programs like Xnormal, Topogun, or Zbrush would be unnecessarily painful (like having to polyreduce the model for Topogun work) or plain impossible (one cannot subdivide or polypaint a heavily reduced model properly, let alone bake it in Xnormal).
This is the main reason why I gave up on MayaLT back then, and unfortunately Modo Indie is doing something similar. In short : indie or even hobbyist projects are much more demanding than one would initially think.
I'm actually surprised The Foundry didn't gimp the rendering more since that's Modo's bread and butter. 4k render limitation is not bad at all if you're doing concepts, motion graphics, or animations. Houdini Indie limits rendering at 1080p and it's more expensive than Modo Indie.
In a perfect world Maya, Modo and Max would be as cheap as Zbrush
Houdini indie limited to 1080p rendering for animation. Stills, textures and other bakes are not resolution limited. Houdini indie also comes with better support and free upgrades for the term of the license. It doesn't necessarily cost more, it's just a different calculation when it comes to cost.
It goes to show that arbitrary limitations can very much affect the target audience that the tool is "limited for" to begin with. I would guess that this most likely came from some misworded user survey, like "how many triangles do you need in order to export for Dota2", which is a fair question in itself but is completely oblivious of 80% of the creation pipeline of said asset.
Why doesn't Modo Indie just put restrictions on how the software can be used commercially? That's why Allegorithmic and Quixel.
Honestly, I'd just be happy if they somehow included some of the more popular UV and normal scripts in Modo Indie, and got rid of the export limit so artists could bake in any program they wanted.
Yes, that's exactly what I'm talking about. It makes a lot more sense to just run Modo natively though. You don't need to do PCI passthrough to get Zbrush running well.
Yeah that's one of my concerns with such a setup; since you'd want good GPU performance natively as well as on the guest (Since windows would be running things like UE4, Marmoset, games and other misc engines, substance painter, photoshop...) you need two GPU's, one for the guest and one for the host. I mean, you could get by doing EVERYTHING in the guest but then you might as well forget the whole thing.
Why doesn't Modo Indie just put restrictions on how the software can be used commercially? That's why Allegorithmic and Quixel.
That would be nice and from a user standpoint, it would be hard to argue against.
Thing is, Allegorithmic and Quixel are in a different place than The Foundry and their products, one just doesnt always have the luxury or ability to take such risks. Allegorithmic and quixel's products will work along side other products as one part of the workflow...where as what the Foundry is offering is primary 3d creation application. There is just no way to really verify who is using what and how much they are making, sadly. Its a valid concern if they have it, especially if it starts to eat up Modo full sales.
I think what we are seeing is kind of amazing actually if you consider the foundry's company culture. They were normally for the high end studios only... $2k texture painting apps, $10k+ compositing apps... so this is a shift in their market and way of thinking. What we are seeing is an evolution, whether it sticks or not is up to see but the changes are happening... its just big baby steps I suppose.
Actually if you're willing to make some changes here and there you can have a pretty workable pipeline on Linux. Switch out Krita for Photoshop, Mudbox for Zbrush, Modo for Modo (or the main app of your choice), and add in 3d Coat for texturing or UV layout if necessary and you'll basically everything you need. For baking you can bake in your main app or bake WS normals in Mudbox and use Blender to convert them to TS. And as far as engines go Unity and UE4 editors both work well enough on Linux. You won't be running DFAO or light propagation volumes which require DX11 but UE4 is surprisingly functional right now if you can stand the time it takes to compile it. It's a shame that Toolbag has no Linux version; you have to preview in Unity/UE4 or with your 3d app's renderer. Luckily it's pretty fast to preview render in Unity, but the shaders aren't as good out of the box as Toolbag especially for character art.
Actually if you're willing to make some changes here and there you can have a pretty workable pipeline on Linux. Switch out Krita for Photoshop, Mudbox for Zbrush, Modo for Modo (or the main app of your choice), and add in 3d Coat for texturing or UV layout if necessary and you'll basically everything you need.
I guess the roadblock I always encounter in discussions like this is ... if I'm making these app switches and accepting compromises and basically leaving behind a fully functional working environment (Windows or Mac) for Linux, what is it exactly that I'm GETTING. Sacrifices are OK if I'm getting something greater.
Modo indie seems like a good way to learn modo. £10 a month while you learn (no real risk) and if you decide you want to swap to modo full time... Modo full is like 6 months 3ds max sub to own modo entirely.
Well, I guess Modo indie could be justified as paid demo, but one thing to consider is that the Foundry no longer charges $30 for the Modo demo like Luxology used to do, and the 30-day trial can be extended by writing customer support and asking for more time to eval. And unlike Modo indie, you will get the full experience and be able to install valuable scripts like vertex normal toolkit, substance, etc. Also the demo can be used with any workflow as there are no export limitations. I would just get the demo and then ask for an extension.
Lots of hate in this tread. I think the product serves a purpose. For someone like me just trying to learn to poly model I think it's a great way to learn Modo on the cheap. I know I can't make use of all the sweet scripts, but the reality is someone like me just doesn't have the knowledge base or the speed to make use of them probably. I think the price is quite reasonable for what you get.
It's not a question of hate. I think everybody here express their opinions in a civilized manner.
If you are happy with the current offer from the foundry, good for you.
For some people, the limitations are really problematic (I'm having a hard time understanding the logic behind them) and I don't see what they have to gain by putting limitations for indies.
I've been a user of Substance designer indie and Painter indie at home for a long time. Being more than impressed by the software and the customer service/support, I decided to present the pieces of software in my company. A few weeks later, Allegorithmic had sold a substantial amount of professional licences...
Oh well only thing i can say about scripts, for modeling or other workflow improvements you dont need them, almost everyone knows Tor Frick and he use mainly macros, custom hotkeys and Pie Menus, so you can do much without python.
It's not a question of hate. I think everybody here express their opinions in a civilized manner.
If you are happy with the current offer from the foundry, good for you.
For some people, the limitations are really problematic (I'm having a hard time understanding the logic behind them) and I don't see what they have to gain by putting limitations for indies.
I've been a user of Substance designer indie and Painter indie at home for a long time. Being more than impressed by the software and the customer service/support, I decided to present the pieces of software in my company. A few weeks later, Allegorithmic had sold a substantial amount of professional licences...
Here, here Joe.
You all are sharing your opinions in a much more civilized manor then a certain thread that I just had to lock in Steam due to it getting out of control.
Nervous Chimp:
I still have a shirt of you Hearting Luxology and its magical. I wear it on days that I need to keep going and keep pushing to help make MODO indie better for the community. I remember you from the olden days of your. Those were good days indeed. I wasn't looking for any kind of feedback, in fact I knew what I was going to get back. I just still have to keep the full product in mind like everyone else. I know that I've said it before, but there are some more great things on the horizons that I am working on finalizing up for future updates. Expansion and evolution are words I would use.
I'm happy that we're all able to have mature discussions about the digital creation world we all inhabit. Your feedback is being taken into account and molded into what I am allowed to do with the product, the rest is up to senior management and out of my hands... but I do my best to make good cases for everything.
Modo Indie 901 is definitely a good cheap opportunity to learn Modo. But, Modo Indie doesn't well represent what Modo "is" on a conceptual or philosophical level.
Right, exactly! It carries the name, not the heart.
Noticed all the interactive tools and handles were laggy in the viewport with my 1000Hz Razer mouse. I set it down to 125Hz and it got fixed, but was wondering if there's some magical setting I should check so it would work as flawlessly with 1000Hz mouse?
There's a lot of sentimental talk, regarding heart (wind, fire, earth..ect jk) and I cant help but feel its a bit silly. It could imply anything and yet nothing at all.
If we are to say, "it doesnt have what makes Modo great" then we are getting somewhere...rather than this "heart" stuff. So then a followup on that is required, what then makes Modo great? Scripts? Lack of export limitations? Those are the only two I can see being the big "heart removing" elements being implied here...
So then do scripts and export options define Modo and its workflow? I would contend no, not even close. So if thats the case, whatever this "heart" is, is still there.
Now if we are to question does it fit the label and expectation of Indie? Then that seems like a more concrete line of thought worth perusing. Indie as in Game? Film? General CG? Product Design? At this point I would argue then that Indie probably isnt doing the best to cater to a specific Indie target audience. Maya LT makes it clear, "this is for indie game devs". Modo Indie doesnt have that kind of direct audience in mind so its harder to visualize how the limitations fit in or what the feature set can necessarily be for.
Lets change the vague "heart" semantics to something more concrete and give feedback based on that, otherwise a lot of empty words are being said.
So instead of Modo Indie for freelancers, it becomes more Modo Indie for hobbyists or casual artists
I think that is exactly the issue. As a matter of fact I doubt that any small/independent studio is using Modo Indie at all ; and even for an individual freelancer it wouldn't make much sense to use it, because of the limitations and the fact that (if I understand correctly) the file format is not compatible with regular Modo. Autodesk made the same mistake with MayaLT.
In passing, regarding said limitations : I cannot help but feel that these were put in place because of an "oldschool" approach to marketing (like selling different versions of a car at different prices because of different options), even though this is largely irrelevant to software.
I am not sure if they are doing any kind of background check on their license holders ; and if they don't, maybe they simply operate on the assumption that any serious professional and/or studio respects the license terms, purchasing a full license when reaching the revenue limit. If anything, this can only help the market penetration of their programs ...
I think that is exactly the issue. As a matter of fact I doubt that any small/independent studio is using Modo Indie at all ; and even for an individual freelancer it wouldn't make much sense to use it, because of the limitations and the fact that (if I understand correctly) the file format is not compatible with regular Modo. Autodesk made the same mistake with MayaLT.
In passing, regarding said limitations : I cannot help but feel that these were put in place because of an "oldschool" approach to marketing (like selling different versions of a car at different prices because of different options), even though this is largely irrelevant to software.
I am not sure if they are doing any kind of background check on their license holders ; and if they don't, maybe they simply operate on the assumption that any serious professional and/or studio respects the license terms, purchasing a full license when reaching the revenue limit. If anything, this can only help the market penetration of their programs ...
If someone were going to use the Indie version in a full studio and violate the license, I'm pretty sure they could just use the free trial even more easily.
Or they could just straight up pirate the full version, and in either case not pay anything.
@ tidal, The same can be said for any software package, we see it in Maya and Max all the time. Some of the greatest scripts and plugins for other software are not even within the normal Indie price range to begin with... so they are still out of reach.
Furthermore, I would contend that scripts in Modo so far do not define the workflow...just add convenience or enhancement. That may not always be true going forward, but its kind of where it stands now.
@general subject
On the subject of file format compatibility. Modo Indie can open full version modo save files, just not the reverse. On the subject of Macros, these can be used between Indie and Full with no issue. You could automate the steps and settings to create an auto pelt unwrap tool/function for UVs and share those between versions or with others.
Anyways, if we want to send the message that Indie licenses are not worth the Foundry's interest in perusing... by all means please keep suggesting its a bad product thats not worth $10 a month or $299 perpetual. If however you want to send the message that Indie is the right way to go for the middle ground-low end, then support it and be reasonable.
I would hate for Maya to end up being the only commercial indie content creation package on the market.. I personally like the competition and options. I also dont see this "level" of criticism being thrown at them either for their polycount cap or lack of python scripting. Sure theres criticism but this just looks worse, almost like its dog piling on the underdog. Maybe thats not the case, but it looks/feels that way to me.
Feedback is good, but at what point does it start sounding like entitlement or unreasonable? Something to think about.
@ tidal, The same can be said for any software package, we see it in Maya and Max all the time. Some of the greatest scripts and plugins for other software are not even within the normal Indie price range to begin with... so they are still out of reach.
Furthermore, I would contend that scripts in Modo so far do not define the workflow...just add convenience or enhancement. That may not always be true going forward, but its kind of where it stands now.
@general subject
On the subject of file format compatibility. Modo Indie can open full version modo save files, just not the reverse. On the subject of Macros, these can be used between Indie and Full with no issue. You could automate the steps and settings to create an auto pelt unwrap tool/function for UVs and share those between versions or with others.
Anyways, if we want to send the message that Indie licenses are not worth the Foundry's interest in perusing... by all means please suggesting its a bad product thats not worth $10 a month or $299 perpetual. If however you want to send the message that Indie is the right way to go for the middle ground-low end, then support it and be reasonable.
I would hate for Maya to end up being the only commercial indie content creation package on the market, I dont see this level of criticism being leveled at them either for their polycount cap or lack of python scripting. Sure theres criticism but this just looks work, almost like its dog piling on the underdog. Maybe thats not the case, but it looks/feels that way.
Right, so let's all just pretend that everything is perfect. Then we can all just be happy the software even exists, while it stagnates and continues to lack vital features because no one will give them decent feedback.
Gotta say though, I am amused by your idea that they would pull the software just because they received constructive criticism.
Right, so let's all just pretend that everything is perfect. Then we can all just be happy the software even exists, while it stagnates and continues to lack vital features because no one will give them decent feedback.
Gotta say though, I am amused by your idea that they would pull the software just because they received constructive criticism.
How on hell did you manage to get "lets all pretend that everything is perfect" and "they would pull software because of 'constructive criticism'" from my post?
We cant have a "constructive" discussion if you are mischaracterizing the content of my post.
What it all boils down to is a request for some proper and reasoned perspective.
Tidal : I think artists simply expect Modo Indie ... to be appropriate for Independent game development (roughly speaking : small studios and individuals), because that's what the name clearly implies. Had it been called "Modo Hobby" this whole discussion would have been different. But then again, who knows really.
Regarding Modo modules : why not ! I personally would be very likely to purchase Modo Render. That said, Modo Indie *does* do that already ...
I would still argue against it if the thing was called Modo Hobby. Hobbyist here, and still using tons of scripts whenever I can in any application I have allowing it. If anything I think I rely on script more BECAUSE I'm a hobbyist. I don't have a lot of time to work on my art and I like that time to be spent actually creating stuff instead of repetitive stuff that can be automated.
With all the criticism, let's just keep in mind that you are supposed to notice the limitations. If you weren't, there would be no reason to ever buy a full version.
I personally much prefer the limitation of features over limitations of usage, as in educational licenses that you can't use comercially.
I like the idea of modules. Technically you could sell a very basic version of modo for cheap, and then sell modules like:
Preview Render
Texture Baker
Matcap Shaders
Environment Materials
Dynamics
Rigging/Animation
Mesh Fusion
3D Painting
Sculpting
Retopo
Schemantic View
Volumetric Lighting
etc
Not to completely derail the healthy discussion, but I just want to tune in and thank Foundry for doing a 90% discount. Holy shit!
Was an instant buy. Scripts or not, thats value for me
Tidal : I think artists simply expect Modo Indie ... to be appropriate for Independent game development (roughly speaking : small studios and individuals), because that's what the name clearly implies. Had it been called "Modo Hobby" this whole discussion would have been different. But then again, who knows really.
I think "MODO Lite" would alleviate a lot of this. Then you would be more understanding of missing features or limitations. "Indie" implies you can go make a game with it ...
Lefix : I think that such examples of modules actually demonstrate that the module idea is not that feasible after all, as it would probably make the software needlessly complicated to maintain.
Regarding limitations having to be there in the first place : again, that's debatable (see the Allegorithmic model)
@Man1ik0re, Its a bit frustrating to hear that in part because I dont think you have any specific scripts in mind when you say that. Are you familiar with the Modo workflow? If your point is vague calls for "automation" then a lot of the tools in Modo already do that for you, which is why its often referred to as one of the best modeling packages out there. There's also again, I cant stress this enough... a macro system in place, its sole purpose is to provide automation for the user.
My recommendation is try the software first and get familiar with the workflow before deciding on if you think scripts are your answer. A lot of software is fast if you just get familiar with it, scripts are not like cheat codes that get you past the basics of knowing the software.
@lefix, ideally there would be a commercial lite version and a free edu version...technically the free version exist only there is a 30 day time limit I believe. Not really ideal, but on the pro side it comes with some digital tutors access. Since Nuke went free unlimited edu I wouldnt be surprised to see other software in their library following that option as well.
As for modules... great concept on paper but almost unrealistic in practice, especially since the software doesnt seem build with that option in mind. Modo's features are tightly integrated into one another... so the brush used for painting and sculpting is also important in massaging UVs or painting weights. They all plug into one another and work across the entire workflow, so removing one and not expecting the other to get limited in some way isnt likely.
@Joebount: If you bought the SE, you received the Indie 801 version for free...at that point 901 should show up as a separate product on steam but with a 90% off tag... this is the discounted upgrade cost. If you did purchase the SE version, but did not receive a free Indie upgrade then contact BladeEvolence here on the forums or shoot him a message on steam and he can get that SE to Indie license going for you.
@Pior: I think allegorithmic would be the first to admit that they have something special, that not every studio can mimic what they are doing nor have the luxury of doing so in the same way. Its certainly something to strive for, but if people make comparisons or expect the same model at the snap of a finger, well its just not being fair to the developers involved, imo.
Dataday : are we actually debating the credibility of scripts in a workflow ?
I never seen a Modo user that doesn't use scripts.From the greatest users (Tor Frick) to the smallest ones (me) they all use them and it's part of their workflow.In fact,i don't think any Modo user in this thread doesn't use Seneca's scripts.
The question here is not whether one needs scripts (which by the way is a subjective debate) but WHY does a software that is known for it's customizability limits itself to a point where it's almost not a good solution at all for an indie/hobby developer.
Right now an indie/hobbyist has three (popular) modeling software to choose :
Maya LT : polycount limit set to 65k,although there is a export to UE4/Unity option to remove this limit.Mel scripting and scripts supported,Python scripting and scripts not supported (heard users can change that if they know how to script,seen this in the Unity forum).
Modo Indie : Polycount limit set to 100k,no scripting,no scripts.If there is anything to add please let me know.
Blender : Infinite power,and better than both.Combined.
Don't know about you,but i don't see any advantage about using Modo here.Not even LT because Blender,and I'm not a Blender user,but know how powerful this tool is compared to the complete Modo and Maya.
Fansub, good stuff. The only I thing missing in your comparison is how much more pleasing Modo is to use than Blender and Maya, at least to me. One day I will spend time to learn Blender, but as of now I feel like my hands are stuck in mud when i use it. Maya is just a no go because of the price.
You can tell a lot about a company's philosophy by what their indie offerings are.
On one hand we have companies that support the independence of the artist/developers, and wish to empower them to succeed, by giving them all the tools that they offer at a price that is fair. Then, once the artist/developers have financial success they graduate into full commercial licenses. On the other hand we have the cynics who are more interested in maintaining the status quo than providing independent artists with a real chance to make it on their own.
Interestingly enough, the companies with the best indie software licensing are independent themselves.
The only I thing missing in your comparison is how much more pleasing Modo is to use than Blender and Maya, at least to me.
Modo is my favorite app when it comes to usability and workflow settings,but only if there are scripts.But with that said,this is subjective and takes on many factors to consider.
I wouldn't call 30$/month a no go,but the perpetual license sure is pricey.
Don't know about you,but i don't see any advantage about using Modo here.Not even LT because Blender,and I'm not a Blender user,but know how powerful this tool is compared to the complete Modo and Maya.
I agree. I'd also rather use Blender as I know the development team would be looking at what improvements and features they can give me, and not spending their time actively looking for ways to impede me and 'encourage' me to open up my wallet to get around artificial road blocks.
Some of the limitations on Modo Indie make sense to me,but seeing something like the command history being unavailable is just nonsense.I love Modo,and can't wait to have enough money to buy the full version,but would never us nor recommand Modo Indie to any indie/hobbyist,because there are better options.
I don't think trying a different approch and updating it according to the feedback/profits is impossible.It's risky,but not impossible.
I find the PS about Meshfusion kind of funny. That thing is not a selling point in my book. Way too finicky and not even that useful for bigger projects.
Replies
That's exactly the point though: You can't tell if people pirated Modo either.
Your fears seem to be based on big companies buying Modo Indie when they can afford to buy the full Modo, but that's the beauty of Allegorithmic's system: If you buy the indie edition and you don't fit the stipulations (for instance: you earn more than allowed for the indie edition) then you simply don't have a valid license. I've seen plenty of companies that pirated software left and right, that's always going to happen, but if the *entirely* free version is out there and easy to download, what worries you so much about a cheaper, full-featured version?
And it's understandable that scripts didn't make the cut because with indie you still get the core functionality of modo. If some of the more important stuff (Vertex Normal Toolkit) gets integrated with modo then maybe further script functionality can be considered a luxury rightly reserved for full modo editions. And considering 901's script integrations + revelations from this thread it seems likely that we're going to see more script integration in the future; which is awesome. Failing full integration lesser important stuff could perhaps have a whitelist curated by the foundry with community input; know knows. It has been suggested before.
Yes, that's exactly what I'm talking about. It makes a lot more sense to just run Modo natively though. You don't need to do PCI passthrough to get Zbrush running well.
Very interesting. So "they" have on their team Sculptris orig dev Tomas Petterson (presumably for ADF sculpting dev work), Taron was a tester, and now Farfarer's on board. Very very interesting.
:poly142:
I actually subbed to Modo indie 901, because I figured that for that price, I could afford to keep it around just for meshFusion. After installing, I created a fusion doodle. When I went to export my fusion mesh to 3D-Coat, it failed. It was over the poly limit. I had forgotten how dense those meshfusion models can get. That's when I realized that my concerns were warranted, and Modo indie fails as a modeler. I then unsubbed in frustration (with myself for wasting $14 when I knew better). This is not a problem that I have with blender or Maya LT. Actually for all intents and purposes, Maya LT has no poly cap. I have a folder at the root of my UE4 project that I export my high poly meshes to. I can then open those FBX files in any other app for baking, sculpting etc. And there is blender, which always treats me like a first-class citizen, and doesn't judge or punish me for being "indie." Both blender and Maya LT have earned a permanent place in my tool chest for different reasons. Blender for being a powerful and innovative modeler, and Maya LT for being a dependable, reliable tool that always just works with all popular game engines. I want Modo indie to succeed, but I just can't figure out why I should make room for it. It doesn't offer me the dependable game engine compatibility of Maya LT, and it is rather limited compared to blender. I bring these other tools into this discussion because they are precisely the reason the reason I gave away my Modo 801 license. There was no way I was going to continue to pay $500 for upgrades, when there are awesome and cheap options for game artists.
Before the zealots jump on me with ad hominem, the Foundry got my $14, so now they can have my 2 cents... even though I have felt for a long time that they want our feedback, but only as long as it is positive. Even this thread is an example of that. In the OP, Brandon specifically asked for feedback regarding scripts, and he got a lot of valuable feedback, but it wasn't the cheerleading he had hoped for, and he became defensive. Brandon, I feel you, man. I know your hands are tied. But the artists of polycount have spoken, and they aren't interested in a stripped-down Modo. There are lots of other options.
I am not trying to mean. Like everyone else, I want you to succeed. Once upon a time, I believed in Luxology.
*braced for the inevitable straw-man attacks from the Modo war pups*
PS. Congrats on removing the DRM from the Modo indie scene files. That was extremely draconian.
I bought modo indie for 179 i think and 29.99 for 901. Seems like a great deal to me. I've tried using Blender, especially after seeing Pior going that route but I couldn't get used to the interface. If i stay in modo there is no poly limit so it's great for concepts. I only need to export if end up doing Dota items and 100k is more than enough. If I need more than that i can retopo in topogun or 3d coat. For the price I don't think there is much to complain about.
PS I didn't use a lot scripts in Max either so maybe that has something to do with it.
I'm actually surprised The Foundry didn't gimp the rendering more since that's Modo's bread and butter. 4k render limitation is not bad at all if you're doing concepts, motion graphics, or animations. Houdini Indie limits rendering at 1080p and it's more expensive than Modo Indie.
In a perfect world Maya, Modo and Max would be as cheap as Zbrush
I thought I'd chime in to clarify this topic a little based on personal experience.
When working on Dota items I sometimes work by myself (design phase + final asset delivery) and sometimes with other artists (providing them a design). In this second scenario I end up having to review high poly sculpts for feedback, and I also collaborate on some later technical steps (retopo, polypaint, and so on). Such highpoly files are usually exchanged as ZTL as it is by far the most appropriate format for that purpose, with OBJ coming close second.
Now if I were to work with a modeler using Modo Indie at its fullest (that is to say creating basemeshes in it but also doing a fair amount of sculpting directly inside Modo and/or even setting up the final highpoly asset as a Modo Indie scene), I would be completely stuck since there would be no way to export the model out of the app without a fair amount of triangle reduction to bring it under 100k. Meaning that it would make the model much harder to review ; and furthermore, bringing that model to other essential programs like Xnormal, Topogun, or Zbrush would be unnecessarily painful (like having to polyreduce the model for Topogun work) or plain impossible (one cannot subdivide or polypaint a heavily reduced model properly, let alone bake it in Xnormal).
This is the main reason why I gave up on MayaLT back then, and unfortunately Modo Indie is doing something similar. In short : indie or even hobbyist projects are much more demanding than one would initially think.
I hope this clarifies things a little !
WarrenM, agreed.
Houdini indie limited to 1080p rendering for animation. Stills, textures and other bakes are not resolution limited. Houdini indie also comes with better support and free upgrades for the term of the license. It doesn't necessarily cost more, it's just a different calculation when it comes to cost.
It goes to show that arbitrary limitations can very much affect the target audience that the tool is "limited for" to begin with. I would guess that this most likely came from some misworded user survey, like "how many triangles do you need in order to export for Dota2", which is a fair question in itself but is completely oblivious of 80% of the creation pipeline of said asset.
Honestly, I'd just be happy if they somehow included some of the more popular UV and normal scripts in Modo Indie, and got rid of the export limit so artists could bake in any program they wanted.
Nah, just chimp's usual irrational poop flinging we have all come to expect.
That would be nice and from a user standpoint, it would be hard to argue against.
Thing is, Allegorithmic and Quixel are in a different place than The Foundry and their products, one just doesnt always have the luxury or ability to take such risks. Allegorithmic and quixel's products will work along side other products as one part of the workflow...where as what the Foundry is offering is primary 3d creation application. There is just no way to really verify who is using what and how much they are making, sadly. Its a valid concern if they have it, especially if it starts to eat up Modo full sales.
I think what we are seeing is kind of amazing actually if you consider the foundry's company culture. They were normally for the high end studios only... $2k texture painting apps, $10k+ compositing apps... so this is a shift in their market and way of thinking. What we are seeing is an evolution, whether it sticks or not is up to see but the changes are happening... its just big baby steps I suppose.
If you are happy with the current offer from the foundry, good for you.
For some people, the limitations are really problematic (I'm having a hard time understanding the logic behind them) and I don't see what they have to gain by putting limitations for indies.
I've been a user of Substance designer indie and Painter indie at home for a long time. Being more than impressed by the software and the customer service/support, I decided to present the pieces of software in my company. A few weeks later, Allegorithmic had sold a substantial amount of professional licences...
Here, here Joe.
You all are sharing your opinions in a much more civilized manor then a certain thread that I just had to lock in Steam due to it getting out of control.
Nervous Chimp:
I still have a shirt of you Hearting Luxology and its magical. I wear it on days that I need to keep going and keep pushing to help make MODO indie better for the community. I remember you from the olden days of your. Those were good days indeed. I wasn't looking for any kind of feedback, in fact I knew what I was going to get back. I just still have to keep the full product in mind like everyone else. I know that I've said it before, but there are some more great things on the horizons that I am working on finalizing up for future updates. Expansion and evolution are words I would use.
I'm happy that we're all able to have mature discussions about the digital creation world we all inhabit. Your feedback is being taken into account and molded into what I am allowed to do with the product, the rest is up to senior management and out of my hands... but I do my best to make good cases for everything.
Thanks again all, BladeEvolence OUT!
If we are to say, "it doesnt have what makes Modo great" then we are getting somewhere...rather than this "heart" stuff. So then a followup on that is required, what then makes Modo great? Scripts? Lack of export limitations? Those are the only two I can see being the big "heart removing" elements being implied here...
So then do scripts and export options define Modo and its workflow? I would contend no, not even close. So if thats the case, whatever this "heart" is, is still there.
Now if we are to question does it fit the label and expectation of Indie? Then that seems like a more concrete line of thought worth perusing. Indie as in Game? Film? General CG? Product Design? At this point I would argue then that Indie probably isnt doing the best to cater to a specific Indie target audience. Maya LT makes it clear, "this is for indie game devs". Modo Indie doesnt have that kind of direct audience in mind so its harder to visualize how the limitations fit in or what the feature set can necessarily be for.
Lets change the vague "heart" semantics to something more concrete and give feedback based on that, otherwise a lot of empty words are being said.
I think that is exactly the issue. As a matter of fact I doubt that any small/independent studio is using Modo Indie at all ; and even for an individual freelancer it wouldn't make much sense to use it, because of the limitations and the fact that (if I understand correctly) the file format is not compatible with regular Modo. Autodesk made the same mistake with MayaLT.
In passing, regarding said limitations : I cannot help but feel that these were put in place because of an "oldschool" approach to marketing (like selling different versions of a car at different prices because of different options), even though this is largely irrelevant to software.
As mentioned a few times by others, Allegorithmic is offering unrestricted indie licenses of their software and this seems to work well for them :
https://www.allegorithmic.com/products/license-comparison
I am not sure if they are doing any kind of background check on their license holders ; and if they don't, maybe they simply operate on the assumption that any serious professional and/or studio respects the license terms, purchasing a full license when reaching the revenue limit. If anything, this can only help the market penetration of their programs ...
Or they could just straight up pirate the full version, and in either case not pay anything.
Furthermore, I would contend that scripts in Modo so far do not define the workflow...just add convenience or enhancement. That may not always be true going forward, but its kind of where it stands now.
@general subject
On the subject of file format compatibility. Modo Indie can open full version modo save files, just not the reverse. On the subject of Macros, these can be used between Indie and Full with no issue. You could automate the steps and settings to create an auto pelt unwrap tool/function for UVs and share those between versions or with others.
Anyways, if we want to send the message that Indie licenses are not worth the Foundry's interest in perusing... by all means please keep suggesting its a bad product thats not worth $10 a month or $299 perpetual. If however you want to send the message that Indie is the right way to go for the middle ground-low end, then support it and be reasonable.
I would hate for Maya to end up being the only commercial indie content creation package on the market.. I personally like the competition and options. I also dont see this "level" of criticism being thrown at them either for their polycount cap or lack of python scripting. Sure theres criticism but this just looks worse, almost like its dog piling on the underdog. Maybe thats not the case, but it looks/feels that way to me.
Feedback is good, but at what point does it start sounding like entitlement or unreasonable? Something to think about.
On another note, the full version which has no restrictions at all is currently 40% for those who think Modo is great, but not with the restrictions in Indie. Here's the link: https://www.thefoundry.co.uk/about-us/news-awards/modo-september-promo/
Gotta say though, I am amused by your idea that they would pull the software just because they received constructive criticism.
How on hell did you manage to get "lets all pretend that everything is perfect" and "they would pull software because of 'constructive criticism'" from my post?
We cant have a "constructive" discussion if you are mischaracterizing the content of my post.
What it all boils down to is a request for some proper and reasoned perspective.
Regarding Modo modules : why not ! I personally would be very likely to purchase Modo Render. That said, Modo Indie *does* do that already ...
I personally much prefer the limitation of features over limitations of usage, as in educational licenses that you can't use comercially.
I like the idea of modules. Technically you could sell a very basic version of modo for cheap, and then sell modules like:
Preview Render
Texture Baker
Matcap Shaders
Environment Materials
Dynamics
Rigging/Animation
Mesh Fusion
3D Painting
Sculpting
Retopo
Schemantic View
Volumetric Lighting
etc
Was an instant buy. Scripts or not, thats value for me
I think "MODO Lite" would alleviate a lot of this. Then you would be more understanding of missing features or limitations. "Indie" implies you can go make a game with it ...
To my understanding, MODO indie IS MODO steam.
Lefix : I think that such examples of modules actually demonstrate that the module idea is not that feasible after all, as it would probably make the software needlessly complicated to maintain.
Regarding limitations having to be there in the first place : again, that's debatable (see the Allegorithmic model)
My recommendation is try the software first and get familiar with the workflow before deciding on if you think scripts are your answer. A lot of software is fast if you just get familiar with it, scripts are not like cheat codes that get you past the basics of knowing the software.
@lefix, ideally there would be a commercial lite version and a free edu version...technically the free version exist only there is a 30 day time limit I believe. Not really ideal, but on the pro side it comes with some digital tutors access. Since Nuke went free unlimited edu I wouldnt be surprised to see other software in their library following that option as well.
As for modules... great concept on paper but almost unrealistic in practice, especially since the software doesnt seem build with that option in mind. Modo's features are tightly integrated into one another... so the brush used for painting and sculpting is also important in massaging UVs or painting weights. They all plug into one another and work across the entire workflow, so removing one and not expecting the other to get limited in some way isnt likely.
@Joebount: If you bought the SE, you received the Indie 801 version for free...at that point 901 should show up as a separate product on steam but with a 90% off tag... this is the discounted upgrade cost. If you did purchase the SE version, but did not receive a free Indie upgrade then contact BladeEvolence here on the forums or shoot him a message on steam and he can get that SE to Indie license going for you.
@Pior: I think allegorithmic would be the first to admit that they have something special, that not every studio can mimic what they are doing nor have the luxury of doing so in the same way. Its certainly something to strive for, but if people make comparisons or expect the same model at the snap of a finger, well its just not being fair to the developers involved, imo.
I never seen a Modo user that doesn't use scripts.From the greatest users (Tor Frick) to the smallest ones (me) they all use them and it's part of their workflow.In fact,i don't think any Modo user in this thread doesn't use Seneca's scripts.
The question here is not whether one needs scripts (which by the way is a subjective debate) but WHY does a software that is known for it's customizability limits itself to a point where it's almost not a good solution at all for an indie/hobby developer.
Right now an indie/hobbyist has three (popular) modeling software to choose :
Maya LT : polycount limit set to 65k,although there is a export to UE4/Unity option to remove this limit.Mel scripting and scripts supported,Python scripting and scripts not supported (heard users can change that if they know how to script,seen this in the Unity forum).
Modo Indie : Polycount limit set to 100k,no scripting,no scripts.If there is anything to add please let me know.
Blender : Infinite power,and better than both.Combined.
Don't know about you,but i don't see any advantage about using Modo here.Not even LT because Blender,and I'm not a Blender user,but know how powerful this tool is compared to the complete Modo and Maya.
On one hand we have companies that support the independence of the artist/developers, and wish to empower them to succeed, by giving them all the tools that they offer at a price that is fair. Then, once the artist/developers have financial success they graduate into full commercial licenses. On the other hand we have the cynics who are more interested in maintaining the status quo than providing independent artists with a real chance to make it on their own.
Interestingly enough, the companies with the best indie software licensing are independent themselves.
Modo is my favorite app when it comes to usability and workflow settings,but only if there are scripts.But with that said,this is subjective and takes on many factors to consider.
I wouldn't call 30$/month a no go,but the perpetual license sure is pricey.
I agree. I'd also rather use Blender as I know the development team would be looking at what improvements and features they can give me, and not spending their time actively looking for ways to impede me and 'encourage' me to open up my wallet to get around artificial road blocks.
I don't think trying a different approch and updating it according to the feedback/profits is impossible.It's risky,but not impossible.