Yeah, there's no stack or such, it's a destructive workflow.
I really don't mind as I learned 3D in Lightwave which also has no stack-like history. All it means is that you make sure you want the end result before you save the file. I've never found it to be a bother.
And if you're really unsure about what you want, you can just copy the mesh you're editing into a background layer and copy it back in if you want to retry.
It's two major downfalls in my eyes are 1) no projection cage for baking, just a ray distance and 2) no explicit hard/smoot edges, just a per-material smoothing angle.
-As always, instability. I've learned to press Ctrl+S after just about every action just so I won't have to deal with losing work to a crash. The autosave is untrustworthy as well.
One thing that i love about modo, is that when it crashes(and it does relatively often) i can be back up loaded with an autosave in just a few seconds(unlike waiting 5 minutes for max to actually crash, and another 5 for it to load back up).
I'm surprised you mentioned the autosave system, what about it works poorly for you?
Also yeah, the smoothing or completely lack of mesh normal editing support is some retarded stone age lightwave shit circa 1996.
@pior
Maya's history is exactly that. Specifically, I'm pretty sure once you apply an extrude along curve, the resulting mesh has history that is attached to the curve in maya, and any subsequent edit to that curve flows back up to the extruded mesh.
There's ways that you can work with vertex maps i think modo calls them Morph Maps, but they're basically maya blendshapes. That's the closest thing to any sort of parametric workflow I can think of. It doesn't end up being a huge deal to me, I just end up saving more versions and keeping more iterated copies of the mesh in my scene. I'm not making excuses though, it does suck.
The way that you stack modifiers for a single operation is pretty interesting- they call it the 'Tool Pipe'. Basically, you pick an action center, a falloff parameter, snapping options, and mirroring options, then apply your tool with its own options. Nothing here is groundbreakingly new or exclusive to modo, but the speed that you can get to all the options, combined with the consistency of how they relate to all the standard tools makes it flow really well.
It's unfortunate that the best feature of modo, how well the interface flows, isn't really apparent until you really start power-modeling. In fact, i wish they sold a cheaper version with all the rendering/animation/painting stuff stripped out.
The UV tools are flat out amazing too- great unwrappers and the modeling tools all work in the UV window. Seneca's superUV tools are indispensable- if you really wanna see modo at its best, just go through all the demo videos at indigosm.com
Well yeah Maya does that for curves - but it explodes if you do, say, an extrude on a whole object to give it thickness, then want to punch a hole in the surface by deleting a polygon out of the base shape.
The few times I asked this to experienced Maya users I was always told 'oh give me a minute I'm sure it's possible with some kind of node', just to see a sad face coming back later 'hmm no I don't think that's possible after all' :P
SO yeah this is basically what I was hoping Modo could do aswell ...
Well, it's not deleting faces, and I suspect that sort of mesh edit won't work, but if you use tools that are 1st class hypergraph citizens, you can get good results.
@earthquake
seneca has a couple scripts (famous last words) for quickly creating and adjusting pipes, quickPipe and tubeToChain, that are nice for managing basic tubular extrusions. I've found them super useful, and as long as I keep the construction meshes around, can be very tweakable.
I dont think we honestly need the entire stack functionality brought into max, infact the "what you see is what you get" workflow in modo is something i've grown very accustomed to. But i do there there are a LOT of small improvements to the modeling workflow that still need to be made, but more and more time spent on rendering, animation, etc pulls time away from what made modo a worthwhile app in the first place. I understand what they're trying to do, and im sure i'll play with the animation stuff at some point, but i'de rather the focus be on what i actually use day-to-day, no matter how unrealsitic that may be
If for instance, they added an easy way to create a layer with a curve in it, and a live layer that contained a mesh that could be deformed via that curve layer, i think that would be a huge step forward.
Exactly. EQ and anyone - Is there a single app out other other than Max, able to do that? Coming from Max I always assumed that this kind of flexibility was the CORE of 3d modelling (ineractive symetry - shell modifier that can be edited later on - modifiers applied at object level instead of per component -...) but seems like it really isn't :P
The only ones I know of are CAD programs that I've used before, like CATIA, but they ofc are not for this industry and way more expensive ;p
dl modo trial out of curiosity from this thread and it does seem very intuitive with what it does give you.
In the end it's more likely (only from a technical point of view, mind you) that max will add stuff like isoline editing than that apps like modo will add a stack. Remember when max added Editable Poly? They can do a new upgrade like that, while implementing a stack in an existing app requires more or less a complete rewrite.
That's one of Max's most fundamental downfalls, tbh. They just lump new shit on top of old.
One of the good things about Luxology/modo is that if it requires a total overhaul of a system for better performance or better features, they'll do it. Rather than having it bloated to hell with a backlog of legacy features.
I think it's entirely possible that modo will eventually get stackable modifiers (likely far more powerful and fluid than Max's, too) but it won't be any time soon.
One of the good things about Luxology/modo is that if it requires a total overhaul of a system for better performance or better features, they'll do it. Rather than having it bloated to hell with a backlog of legacy features.
Heh, until they have a solid user-base who are using it day-to-day globally for massive productions, and may well be relying on some of those "legacy" featuers - so if they update the way a system works in the back-end, they have these choices:
Throw out the old system completely and leave everyone who was relying on it out in the cold (which may work now while people still aren't using it for much other than pure modelling with a destructive, raw-mesh end result, but will likely bite them in the ass later if they have to overhaul a fundamental feature or system)
Add the new functionality while preserving the legacy stuff (which is what Max & Maya tend to do, for compatibility reasons)
Somehow convert the old method across to the new one (probably a lot more work than it's worth)
That's my take on it, anyway. Having to keep things editable by a large user-base relying on old features which the developer themselves probably have wanted to phase out for years is a hallmark of many widely-used pieces of software, namely Windows, Max, Maya etc etc.
If you read "oldnewthing" blog, it's by a Microsoft programmer who regularly points out that there are loads of apps relying on core Windows functionality which has been around for years, and may need overhauling - yet they can't change stuff for fear of breaking compatibility with huge amounts of software, even if they wanted to. You have to make a tough decision there - either suck it up and work with something a bit broken, or throw away old work and potentially alienate a large chunk of your user base and buyers! Which I think you'll find is something businesses who want to make money are a bit wary of
In the demo video for the new poly reduction tool, you can see there's a 'legacy mode' button, so at least in that instance, they're fine taking option 2.
@ironbeardxl
Yes, you can set up shortcut keys- just go to the menu system->input editor and add the command to whatever key/modifier combo you want. You can add context aware hotkeys, so if you want rmb to do one thing in the modeling window, and another in the UV window, that's cool too. The utilities palette has a 'History' tab, that shows you the names of all the recently fired commands, so you can look at that to find out the text you need to put into the hotkey (it's also handy for writing scripts)
You should take the time to go through all their tutorial videos- here's a tip:
hit F1, which activates help, changing your mouse icon to a '?'
then click on anything, like cube in the tools panel. This brings up the documentation html for that tool, and it usually has a short video on its operation for _many_ of the tools.
cptincognito: heh, that reinforces the point I was trying to make to Talon - it's clear they're already not prepared to "rip out old stuff" if they need to upgrade some particular system, as proven by the fact that there's already a "legacy mode" for a tool.
What if, 1-2 years from now, there's a "legacy mode" for every tool? Then it'll be heading down the road of clunky awkward complexity like everything else
Been going through the documentation of modo, so far I like it. It's a good sub-d modeler, with some damn sexy features. At the same time, experiencing modo reinforces my love for Silo, even if the smaller app is weaker in many ways. It's an inexplicable thing, but the differences of each are both good; they're like cousins, or different genders of the same beast sought in the quest for the perfect modeler. Would be fun to link them somehow, with realtime updates between applications... excessive, yes, but blissful.
[opinion warning]
Here's the comparison I'm getting: if Silo is a powerglove or bodysuit, modo is a battlemech. It's probably possible to minimize modo into the personal, surgical bodysuit experience, but so far it strikes me as being better suited for heavy liftingbut that's just me, & only after a weekend of messing with it. Silo's allure, I think, lies in its personalized quirks and traits; modo's, in its being streamlined, yet fully-featured...
PROTIP:
If you're using the demo and you aren't quite ready to plunk down the cash for the full license... set the clock back on your computer and you can use it as long as you want.
Bad OBJ exporting. It seems that they use a weird non-standard version of OBJ that doesn't always play well with other programs.
that may be not true, the obj exporter of modo works like a charm for me. When importing into Max or Maya, you may find some problems, but it something of the importer. Long time ago i wrote some help about importing/exporting from modo to Max and viceversa, a cube of 1 meter in modo= a cube of 1 meter in Max.
Since Max 2008 or 2009, all have changed and i wrote another help, and all is easier because in autodesk implemented a good importer.
A non destructive workflow could be helpful, but being an specialized modelling app is very logic not to have it now, becuase when i model, all i do is to use the tools, get the desired result and finish (i hate to go back). I don't care to modify the result of tools, but it could be very nice for some users. In Max, if i don't go to animate any modifier, i collapse all of them.
What i miss, is a bone and deformation system. I always have the need to export to max and rig there to have a pose for presentation.
BTW, Macros are a great thing of modo. If you don't use it, bad . And well, the amount of scripts is fantastic!, too many of them are very helpful.
In Max, it's impossible to work like in modo. You can't have such perfomance in viewports working with subdivs. That's the principal reason of why i use modo, apart of its renderer (the fastest i have ever used). I usually model with a render preview with Global illumination almost in realtime (f 8, and that's something you can see in another program. Modo 401 will introduce an improvement on this, and it's fantastic.
Autosave works great for me :S, i have it set for 1 min and no problems.
You can associate perfectly a key to a tool, i'm using some scripts and i have them associated to a key. Pie menus are fantastic.
To take what modo offers, is a matter of time. If you play with the program some hours, and you are customed to work in maya, max, xsi, or whatever program... you won't like to work with modo because it has a totally different philosophy of work. It's not the best program, but at least is the best program for subdivs nowadays without no doubt. This is something i say because modo was my choice before trying silo and hexagon.
Also, you don't need a ultra mega gamer videocard to work with modo. with a simple 8400GS (~30), you can model very detailed models. With that card in 3ds Max you don't have perfomance. Modo can be ejecuted and works very nice with low specs machines.
I hate when i have to wait to load Max, and this is another good point of modo, its load is almost instantly. lxo files are also smaller than .max ones.
There are more advantages than disadvantages for a modeller.
long time modo user too.
have to work at work with max but work with modo at home.
it´s superb and changed alot over the time (used it since 103 or so).
but as eq pointed out, modo´s major downfalls are the lack of a good smoothing group system or similar, the overall setting just doesnt cut it.
the material sytem overall is neat i say, you get fast and good results.
the baking is another let down, a raycage like in max would be nice.
also modo crashes with me after i bake 3-4 times in a row and i need to restart it o.O
i also miss some simple tool options like in max, and using scripts all the time aint that cool over a long time.
but thats just me
long time modo user too.
have to work at work with max but work with modo at home.
it´s superb and changed alot over the time (used it since 103 or so).
but as eq pointed out, modo´s major downfalls are the lack of a good smoothing group system or similar, the overall setting just doesnt cut it.
the material sytem overall is neat i say, you get fast and good results.
the baking is another let down, a raycage like in max would be nice.
also modo crashes with me after i bake 3-4 times in a row and i need to restart it o.O
i also miss some simple tool options like in max, and using scripts all the time aint that cool over a long time.
but thats just me
Yeah it does have baking issues and others. That's why I said I still would use max or xnormal for other things. Modo still is my choice for modeling though.
Am I the only one here who have to select face, select move tool (w), press space to deselect, select some face, w move, space deselect..and goes on. Otherwise the gizmo follow cursor.
I read in their forum to change 'select through' in tool pipe. But do I have to do this everytime I launch modo?
Tweak tool (t) is similar, but is there any way to constraint to certain axis?
However the best way I found so far is the sticky key, when in move tool, hold w to 'disable' it and allow u to select component, release will trigger back. Maybe someone here have better workflow? Maybe Im used to standard select like maya/max.
Am I the only one here who have to select face, select move tool (w), press space to deselect, select some face, w move, space deselect..and goes on. Otherwise the gizmo follow cursor.
One thing I love (cause I got used to it) in Modo is the ability to have your gizmo wherever you want it to be (right click to set it where you want) then move / scale whatever. This way you can always sees it in the viewport. That and the CTRL + direction (IIRC) to constraint to the direction your mouse is going. It isnt as usefull sometimes, but once you realize how you can use that it is really difficult to go back to a normal selection behavior, and by enabling select through you loose those abilities. But some people hates it and can never use the default modo behavior. It took me a while to like it
I read in their forum to change 'select through' in tool pipe. But do I have to do this everytime I launch modo?
There was a thread on Luxs forum about that (not sure how to do it for the reasons mentioned above).
Tweak tool (t) is similar, but is there any way to constraint to certain axis?
Once in Tweak, left click on the element you wants to move (1 time) to display the axis and be able to constraint to any direction. then, if the gizmo get annoying and in the way, just right click somewhere else and repeat the above to constraint again (LC+move to any direction).
However the best way I found so far is the sticky key, when in move tool, hold w to 'disable' it and allow u to select component, release will trigger back. Maybe someone here have better workflow? Maybe Im used to standard select like maya/max.
That is what I am doing.
The action centres stuff looked a lot like Max's pivot and selection options, along with the new Working Pivot stuff ... just presented a lot more consistently (rather than Maya's options for that stuff which are horribly limited and clunky, and Max's which are pretty effective but a bit of a scattershot approach, far from streamlined).
It is way more powerfull than max half assed working pivot implementation. Once you figure out all the configurations possible that are working for you, it is really difficult to go back to any other 3D app without feeling limited. That combined to the work plane options (and the scripts associated with it) and trackball rotation of the view + the tool specific shortcuts (IE I use Q for edge loop select, and Q is to add segment in bevel tool for example) are the main reasons I am enjoying modo so much. All those combined to all the scripts Seneca and others did...Some of them are really awesome and there is always a way to fight against the destructive workflow, in some ways (like TUBE TO CHAIN script here http://www.indigosm.com/modoscripts.htm). It is less elegant but it is working .
I cannot thank enough Bitmap and Tolas for their help and patience while I was picking up Modo. It was a long and tiring process cause I was so used to max, but now when I am back in max I just turn crazy after 3 mins. that doesn't mean max is less good (for lots of things it is still miles above modo) but so many little things are helping me in Modo that aren't in max that I just turn insane (sad but true). I will probably never use it for other things than modeling but for that I just LOVE it.
I've been using modo since it came out and actually still like it.
The action centers might be easier to deal with if you break them down, I've taken the Axis and Center submenus off from under the Action center menu and gave them their own space, easier to get to and combine as needed. Regular action centers will still do the trick for the basic modeling. http://www.strangefate.com/webby/modo.jpg
As for the tools, I use modo for everything while the rest here uses maya and max. I spend around 30-50% of my time helping others, and everytime I sit down and we try to do something on those apps or ask them to do simple operations it often gets pretty ridiculous.
Maya can't do, Max only like this or that... Maya is clearly handicapped and hopeless when it comes to modeling or UV tools and max manages to do most things with a bit more complexity and redundancy than needed.
Not to say modo is perfect at all... it gets crashy pretty fast if you work with large image files or just images in quantity.
The sculpting tools, while great to paint heightmaps can be crashy too at times and don't like UV seams.
mmm i was supposed to get a free download of modo. but havent receieved it yet, im really anxious to use it
You can just download the full working trial off their website anytime.
Also... There's a modo windows theme too. You need windowblinds but if you have it, it clearly improves your windows
Alternatively you can dump windowblinds like I did, you'll lose the custom icons but will keep all the modo colors for your windows.
I just installed the 30 day trial and i'm having a hell of a time just making a cube.
Is there a way to set up shortcut keys for all the functions?
After using a tool it will show up in your Undos (in the command history Tab). Right click on anything in the Undo list and you'll have several options for it, one will be to bind that command to a key... very easy... Use any tool you like, rightlick it in your undo list = bind.
I come from an arch vis background but now am doing all kinds of hard surface machinery, etc, but I still have a tendency to work with the same type of spline modeling work flow. Lots of extrudes sweeps, very heavy use of trim and outline in max's spline.
I have been mixing in alot more sub-d stuff lately. But I am extremely comfortable with max's native splines. Hell I've used them lately because I found it easier than trying to make the shape I wanted in illustrator. Is this type of workflow something that could work well in Modo, its destuctive nature aside?
Is this type of workflow something that could work well in Modo, its destuctive nature aside?
There are lots of people that do archviz in modo, and there are technically splines, but I wouldn't consider it anywhere near maya for nurbs modeling. I think you'd have to come up with a completely different workflow to take advantage of it.
I don't use them as a surface like with nurbs, an example would be I take an existing dwg from autocad, redraw sections as needed then apply extrude, loft or sweep depending on the piece I need to create. Usually though I end up having to modify the blueprints for obvious reasons. I find this simplest to do at the spline level. I suppose the stack is essecial to this type of work.
I did just watch all the videos on snap and align in modo. That makes me happy. I'm super anal about everything being precise if I'm doing machines or buildings, I never eyeball anything. And it looked like I could ditch my 3 point rotation script out.
Hey so I am just curious how do people get around not being able to edit vertex normals? Do you guys just not have to worry about it because your doing organic normal mapped models?
I read somewhere that you can split edges to separate the verts, is that valid or are there problems with that?
@jocose: You're talking about the lack of smoothing groups or hard/soft edges for "in game" meshes right?
I would imagine that manually separating the verts is an ok workaround. The only thing you'd have to watch out for is that when you export, your exporter or engine importer doesn't re-merge those verts.
I wrote a script that would harden/soften the selected edges, but sadly it bakes it "hard" as it were, so after you edit the mesh further the vertex normals screw up and you need to reset it and go again.
Ultimately I just use it for normal mapped stuff so it's not such a big deal, but if I need to do any smoothing, I'll go .obj > 3DSMax, set up the smoothing groups and export from there instead.
i must be another poor artist too, because i'm getting tons of crashes with this last version. The most irritable, was changing ui from 401 to 301 haha.
I want play with modo. Max sub D's made me sad so I tried silo out and it was pretty jazzy. but if Modo is more powerful I am going to work that program... it says I cannot DL 401 yet but I will OH YEAH i will I am going to work it! BEEP BEEP modeling party time coming through.. ok back to work
Yes I was talking about making the "smoothing groups" (for you max users out there). I just want to be able to control how very low poly models shade, and also edit the vertex normals to control how the normal map is baked.
I know you can simply break the edge and have two separate verts at the same location to "harden" up an edge, but this screws up the mesh and also makes it impossible to select edge loops across those broken edges.
I'm starting to think that Modo just really shouldn't be used to create low poly models. Its just not made with that kind of workflow in mind. Do most of you modo users just create their low poly models in another app?
I'm starting to think that Modo just really shouldn't be used to create low poly models. Its just not made with that kind of workflow in mind. Do most of you modo users just create their low poly models in another app?
I do all in modo actually, i use max only for rigging and posing.
Well then how do you go about dealing with normal mapping hard surface models? Creating "hard" edges along the UV seams is usually the best way to bake in tangent space normal maps, and its not very easy to control in Modo. Do you have any tips or tricks for dealing with this?
That UV split/hard edge method doesn't always work well, especially in UE3...
Ideally when you want a nice beveled edge to carry over from a high poly to low poly via tangent space normal map you want to add a little bit of a bevel on the low poly as well.
I understand though in the real world you might get hard triangle count limits on your objects that you just can't negotiate so that methodology is not always practical.
In my experience though the only time you really want to use that hard edge/split UV with normal maps is when your game will display the same asset both with and without normal maps. That's when you need those edges to be defined by the vertex normals (hard edges/smoothing groups) and not the normal map.
If you're having problems modeling after splitting the edges, just don't split them until you are finished modeling. Split the edges just before baking and exporting to your engine. At that point the model shouldn't require too much tweaking.
That UV split/hard edge method doesn't always work well, especially in UE3...
Ideally when you want a nice beveled edge to carry over from a high poly to low poly via tangent space normal map you want to add a little bit of a bevel on the low poly as well.
I understand though in the real world you might get hard triangle count limits on your objects that you just can't negotiate so that methodology is not always practical.
In my experience though the only time you really want to use that hard edge/split UV with normal maps is when your game will display the same asset both with and without normal maps. That's when you need those edges to be defined by the vertex normals (hard edges/smoothing groups) and not the normal map.
If you're having problems modeling after splitting the edges, just don't split them until you are finished modeling. Split the edges just before baking and exporting to your engine. At that point the model shouldn't require too much tweaking.
Yeah re-reading that thread did calm my nerves a little bit. You mentioned having problems with splitting edges and exporting to U3, could you elaborate on that, what exactly kind of problems result form doing that?
The problem with the split hard edge/UVs happens when you try to get a nice beveled edge with your normal map.
This is what happens:
See how the edges on the cube on the right don't look all that great. Although the cube on the left is having some shading problems of it's own, still the edges look ok.
If I remember correctly you can get away with that method for the cube on the right Max's viewport, but it's never worked well for me in Unreal.
All of this was done in with Modo, no other apps involved except Photoshop and UT3 of course. I think I could probably get better results on the left cube with a different UV layout, or by baking with a cage in xNormal, Max, or Maya.
Thanks a lot for the pics, that does help. I am actually starting to realize that there are very few if any situations where I would want control over the vertex normals beyond what modo already offers.
Also it's nice to not have to worry about the normals getting screwed up during the modeling process and then to have to go back and correct them. So far I have been getting pretty good results by setting up multiple materials with different smoothing angles depending on what I want.
Given all the advantages of Modo I think i'll just have to get used to it.
I'm still a little confused about a the whole smoothing group deal. Is it good to have multiple smoothing groups on an object or just one? If imported into a game engine like UE3 does it even matter?
I hate to say it but "it depends". In Unreal if you've got a normal mapped organic object (meaning no 90 degree angles) it's usually best to stick to one smoothing group. But like I said in an earlier post sometimes you end up having to model at a low triangle count and just can't spare any extra tris for nice beveled edges on sharp angles. Then you need to separate those edges with smoothing groups, otherwise you'll get nasty shading errors.
Another situation that smoothing groups/split edges is necessary is when you need to display the same model sometimes with a normal map and sometimes without a normal map. If said object has any sharp edges it won't hold up well without a normal map and separate smoothing groups.
One other situation that smoothing groups/splitting edges is necessary for good results is when you need to share the same texture across multiple objects but they have different mesh topologies. That's when getting rid of the "shading" in the normal map and just having the edge and bump info is useful. In that case you need to use smoothing groups in order for the vertex normals of the low poly mesh to be flat for the bakes.
Ok, I think we've successfully derailed this thread, lol :poly136:
The whole smoothing issue is kind of pointless in my opinion. At the moment I don't think there are many engine exporters for Modo anyway, so you will have to bring your model into another 3d app to export it to the engine, so you can just set up your smoothing groups there instead, before the export.
For the baking, you can just manually cut up your model to get hard edges, bake the normal map, then merge the model back together again, it's what I always do, and it works just fine
Replies
I really don't mind as I learned 3D in Lightwave which also has no stack-like history. All it means is that you make sure you want the end result before you save the file. I've never found it to be a bother.
And if you're really unsure about what you want, you can just copy the mesh you're editing into a background layer and copy it back in if you want to retry.
It's two major downfalls in my eyes are 1) no projection cage for baking, just a ray distance and 2) no explicit hard/smoot edges, just a per-material smoothing angle.
One thing that i love about modo, is that when it crashes(and it does relatively often) i can be back up loaded with an autosave in just a few seconds(unlike waiting 5 minutes for max to actually crash, and another 5 for it to load back up).
I'm surprised you mentioned the autosave system, what about it works poorly for you?
Also yeah, the smoothing or completely lack of mesh normal editing support is some retarded stone age lightwave shit circa 1996.
Maya's history is exactly that. Specifically, I'm pretty sure once you apply an extrude along curve, the resulting mesh has history that is attached to the curve in maya, and any subsequent edit to that curve flows back up to the extruded mesh.
@Mop
There's ways that you can work with vertex maps i think modo calls them Morph Maps, but they're basically maya blendshapes. That's the closest thing to any sort of parametric workflow I can think of. It doesn't end up being a huge deal to me, I just end up saving more versions and keeping more iterated copies of the mesh in my scene. I'm not making excuses though, it does suck.
The way that you stack modifiers for a single operation is pretty interesting- they call it the 'Tool Pipe'. Basically, you pick an action center, a falloff parameter, snapping options, and mirroring options, then apply your tool with its own options. Nothing here is groundbreakingly new or exclusive to modo, but the speed that you can get to all the options, combined with the consistency of how they relate to all the standard tools makes it flow really well.
It's unfortunate that the best feature of modo, how well the interface flows, isn't really apparent until you really start power-modeling. In fact, i wish they sold a cheaper version with all the rendering/animation/painting stuff stripped out.
The UV tools are flat out amazing too- great unwrappers and the modeling tools all work in the UV window. Seneca's superUV tools are indispensable- if you really wanna see modo at its best, just go through all the demo videos at indigosm.com
The few times I asked this to experienced Maya users I was always told 'oh give me a minute I'm sure it's possible with some kind of node', just to see a sad face coming back later 'hmm no I don't think that's possible after all' :P
SO yeah this is basically what I was hoping Modo could do aswell ...
Well, it's not deleting faces, and I suspect that sort of mesh edit won't work, but if you use tools that are 1st class hypergraph citizens, you can get good results.
@earthquake
seneca has a couple scripts (famous last words) for quickly creating and adjusting pipes, quickPipe and tubeToChain, that are nice for managing basic tubular extrusions. I've found them super useful, and as long as I keep the construction meshes around, can be very tweakable.
If for instance, they added an easy way to create a layer with a curve in it, and a live layer that contained a mesh that could be deformed via that curve layer, i think that would be a huge step forward.
The only ones I know of are CAD programs that I've used before, like CATIA, but they ofc are not for this industry and way more expensive ;p
dl modo trial out of curiosity from this thread and it does seem very intuitive with what it does give you.
One of the good things about Luxology/modo is that if it requires a total overhaul of a system for better performance or better features, they'll do it. Rather than having it bloated to hell with a backlog of legacy features.
I think it's entirely possible that modo will eventually get stackable modifiers (likely far more powerful and fluid than Max's, too) but it won't be any time soon.
Heh, until they have a solid user-base who are using it day-to-day globally for massive productions, and may well be relying on some of those "legacy" featuers - so if they update the way a system works in the back-end, they have these choices:
- Throw out the old system completely and leave everyone who was relying on it out in the cold (which may work now while people still aren't using it for much other than pure modelling with a destructive, raw-mesh end result, but will likely bite them in the ass later if they have to overhaul a fundamental feature or system)
- Add the new functionality while preserving the legacy stuff (which is what Max & Maya tend to do, for compatibility reasons)
- Somehow convert the old method across to the new one (probably a lot more work than it's worth)
That's my take on it, anyway. Having to keep things editable by a large user-base relying on old features which the developer themselves probably have wanted to phase out for years is a hallmark of many widely-used pieces of software, namely Windows, Max, Maya etc etc.If you read "oldnewthing" blog, it's by a Microsoft programmer who regularly points out that there are loads of apps relying on core Windows functionality which has been around for years, and may need overhauling - yet they can't change stuff for fear of breaking compatibility with huge amounts of software, even if they wanted to. You have to make a tough decision there - either suck it up and work with something a bit broken, or throw away old work and potentially alienate a large chunk of your user base and buyers! Which I think you'll find is something businesses who want to make money are a bit wary of
Pior: Were you talking about something like this? I wasn't sure.
Modifier stack, Maya-style!
Is there a way to set up shortcut keys for all the functions?
In the demo video for the new poly reduction tool, you can see there's a 'legacy mode' button, so at least in that instance, they're fine taking option 2.
@ironbeardxl
Yes, you can set up shortcut keys- just go to the menu system->input editor and add the command to whatever key/modifier combo you want. You can add context aware hotkeys, so if you want rmb to do one thing in the modeling window, and another in the UV window, that's cool too. The utilities palette has a 'History' tab, that shows you the names of all the recently fired commands, so you can look at that to find out the text you need to put into the hotkey (it's also handy for writing scripts)
You should take the time to go through all their tutorial videos- here's a tip:
hit F1, which activates help, changing your mouse icon to a '?'
then click on anything, like cube in the tools panel. This brings up the documentation html for that tool, and it usually has a short video on its operation for _many_ of the tools.
What if, 1-2 years from now, there's a "legacy mode" for every tool? Then it'll be heading down the road of clunky awkward complexity like everything else
[opinion warning]
Here's the comparison I'm getting: if Silo is a powerglove or bodysuit, modo is a battlemech. It's probably possible to minimize modo into the personal, surgical bodysuit experience, but so far it strikes me as being better suited for heavy liftingbut that's just me, & only after a weekend of messing with it. Silo's allure, I think, lies in its personalized quirks and traits; modo's, in its being streamlined, yet fully-featured...
If you're using the demo and you aren't quite ready to plunk down the cash for the full license... set the clock back on your computer and you can use it as long as you want.
It just never seems to work properly for me, even with a folder set up specifically for autosaves and stuff. I've kind of given up on it now.
Since Max 2008 or 2009, all have changed and i wrote another help, and all is easier because in autodesk implemented a good importer.
A non destructive workflow could be helpful, but being an specialized modelling app is very logic not to have it now, becuase when i model, all i do is to use the tools, get the desired result and finish (i hate to go back). I don't care to modify the result of tools, but it could be very nice for some users. In Max, if i don't go to animate any modifier, i collapse all of them.
What i miss, is a bone and deformation system. I always have the need to export to max and rig there to have a pose for presentation.
BTW, Macros are a great thing of modo. If you don't use it, bad
In Max, it's impossible to work like in modo. You can't have such perfomance in viewports working with subdivs. That's the principal reason of why i use modo, apart of its renderer (the fastest i have ever used). I usually model with a render preview with Global illumination almost in realtime (f 8, and that's something you can see in another program. Modo 401 will introduce an improvement on this, and it's fantastic.
Autosave works great for me :S, i have it set for 1 min and no problems.
You can associate perfectly a key to a tool, i'm using some scripts and i have them associated to a key. Pie menus are fantastic.
To take what modo offers, is a matter of time. If you play with the program some hours, and you are customed to work in maya, max, xsi, or whatever program... you won't like to work with modo because it has a totally different philosophy of work. It's not the best program, but at least is the best program for subdivs nowadays without no doubt. This is something i say because modo was my choice before trying silo and hexagon.
Also, you don't need a ultra mega gamer videocard to work with modo. with a simple 8400GS (~30), you can model very detailed models. With that card in 3ds Max you don't have perfomance. Modo can be ejecuted and works very nice with low specs machines.
I hate when i have to wait to load Max, and this is another good point of modo, its load is almost instantly. lxo files are also smaller than .max ones.
There are more advantages than disadvantages for a modeller.
i love modo
have to work at work with max but work with modo at home.
it´s superb and changed alot over the time (used it since 103 or so).
but as eq pointed out, modo´s major downfalls are the lack of a good smoothing group system or similar, the overall setting just doesnt cut it.
the material sytem overall is neat i say, you get fast and good results.
the baking is another let down, a raycage like in max would be nice.
also modo crashes with me after i bake 3-4 times in a row and i need to restart it o.O
i also miss some simple tool options like in max, and using scripts all the time aint that cool over a long time.
but thats just me
Yeah it does have baking issues and others. That's why I said I still would use max or xnormal for other things. Modo still is my choice for modeling though.
I read in their forum to change 'select through' in tool pipe. But do I have to do this everytime I launch modo?
Tweak tool (t) is similar, but is there any way to constraint to certain axis?
However the best way I found so far is the sticky key, when in move tool, hold w to 'disable' it and allow u to select component, release will trigger back. Maybe someone here have better workflow? Maybe Im used to standard select like maya/max.
One thing I love (cause I got used to it) in Modo is the ability to have your gizmo wherever you want it to be (right click to set it where you want) then move / scale whatever. This way you can always sees it in the viewport. That and the CTRL + direction (IIRC) to constraint to the direction your mouse is going. It isnt as usefull sometimes, but once you realize how you can use that it is really difficult to go back to a normal selection behavior, and by enabling select through you loose those abilities. But some people hates it and can never use the default modo behavior. It took me a while to like it
There was a thread on Luxs forum about that (not sure how to do it for the reasons mentioned above).
Once in Tweak, left click on the element you wants to move (1 time) to display the axis and be able to constraint to any direction. then, if the gizmo get annoying and in the way, just right click somewhere else and repeat the above to constraint again (LC+move to any direction).
That is what I am doing.
It is way more powerfull than max half assed working pivot implementation. Once you figure out all the configurations possible that are working for you, it is really difficult to go back to any other 3D app without feeling limited. That combined to the work plane options (and the scripts associated with it) and trackball rotation of the view + the tool specific shortcuts (IE I use Q for edge loop select, and Q is to add segment in bevel tool for example) are the main reasons I am enjoying modo so much. All those combined to all the scripts Seneca and others did...Some of them are really awesome and there is always a way to fight against the destructive workflow, in some ways (like TUBE TO CHAIN script here http://www.indigosm.com/modoscripts.htm). It is less elegant but it is working
I cannot thank enough Bitmap and Tolas for their help and patience while I was picking up Modo. It was a long and tiring process cause I was so used to max, but now when I am back in max I just turn crazy after 3 mins. that doesn't mean max is less good (for lots of things it is still miles above modo) but so many little things are helping me in Modo that aren't in max that I just turn insane (sad but true). I will probably never use it for other things than modeling but for that I just LOVE it.
The action centers might be easier to deal with if you break them down, I've taken the Axis and Center submenus off from under the Action center menu and gave them their own space, easier to get to and combine as needed. Regular action centers will still do the trick for the basic modeling.
http://www.strangefate.com/webby/modo.jpg
As for the tools, I use modo for everything while the rest here uses maya and max. I spend around 30-50% of my time helping others, and everytime I sit down and we try to do something on those apps or ask them to do simple operations it often gets pretty ridiculous.
Maya can't do, Max only like this or that... Maya is clearly handicapped and hopeless when it comes to modeling or UV tools and max manages to do most things with a bit more complexity and redundancy than needed.
Not to say modo is perfect at all... it gets crashy pretty fast if you work with large image files or just images in quantity.
The sculpting tools, while great to paint heightmaps can be crashy too at times and don't like UV seams.
You can just download the full working trial off their website anytime.
Also... There's a modo windows theme too. You need windowblinds but if you have it, it clearly improves your windows
Alternatively you can dump windowblinds like I did, you'll lose the custom icons but will keep all the modo colors for your windows.
After using a tool it will show up in your Undos (in the command history Tab). Right click on anything in the Undo list and you'll have several options for it, one will be to bind that command to a key... very easy... Use any tool you like, rightlick it in your undo list = bind.
I have been mixing in alot more sub-d stuff lately. But I am extremely comfortable with max's native splines. Hell I've used them lately because I found it easier than trying to make the shape I wanted in illustrator. Is this type of workflow something that could work well in Modo, its destuctive nature aside?
There are lots of people that do archviz in modo, and there are technically splines, but I wouldn't consider it anywhere near maya for nurbs modeling. I think you'd have to come up with a completely different workflow to take advantage of it.
I did just watch all the videos on snap and align in modo. That makes me happy. I'm super anal about everything being precise if I'm doing machines or buildings, I never eyeball anything. And it looked like I could ditch my 3 point rotation script out.
I read somewhere that you can split edges to separate the verts, is that valid or are there problems with that?
Going from what jocose mentioned, I imagine he uses it for creasing edges. Never thought to do that myself...
I just use edge weighting for that
I would imagine that manually separating the verts is an ok workaround. The only thing you'd have to watch out for is that when you export, your exporter or engine importer doesn't re-merge those verts.
Ultimately I just use it for normal mapped stuff so it's not such a big deal, but if I need to do any smoothing, I'll go .obj > 3DSMax, set up the smoothing groups and export from there instead.
An artist is nothing without tools.
I know you can simply break the edge and have two separate verts at the same location to "harden" up an edge, but this screws up the mesh and also makes it impossible to select edge loops across those broken edges.
I'm starting to think that Modo just really shouldn't be used to create low poly models. Its just not made with that kind of workflow in mind. Do most of you modo users just create their low poly models in another app?
I do all in modo actually, i use max only for rigging and posing.
This should explain why its useful: http://www.svartberg.com/tutorials/article_normalmaps/normalmaps.html
Ideally when you want a nice beveled edge to carry over from a high poly to low poly via tangent space normal map you want to add a little bit of a bevel on the low poly as well.
Check out this thread:
http://boards.polycount.net/showthread.php?t=50588
This post from that thread is what I'm talking about:
http://boards.polycount.net/showpost.php?p=762436&postcount=15
I understand though in the real world you might get hard triangle count limits on your objects that you just can't negotiate so that methodology is not always practical.
In my experience though the only time you really want to use that hard edge/split UV with normal maps is when your game will display the same asset both with and without normal maps. That's when you need those edges to be defined by the vertex normals (hard edges/smoothing groups) and not the normal map.
If you're having problems modeling after splitting the edges, just don't split them until you are finished modeling. Split the edges just before baking and exporting to your engine. At that point the model shouldn't require too much tweaking.
Yeah re-reading that thread did calm my nerves a little bit. You mentioned having problems with splitting edges and exporting to U3, could you elaborate on that, what exactly kind of problems result form doing that?
This is what happens:
See how the edges on the cube on the right don't look all that great. Although the cube on the left is having some shading problems of it's own, still the edges look ok.
If I remember correctly you can get away with that method for the cube on the right Max's viewport, but it's never worked well for me in Unreal.
All of this was done in with Modo, no other apps involved except Photoshop and UT3 of course. I think I could probably get better results on the left cube with a different UV layout, or by baking with a cage in xNormal, Max, or Maya.
Hope that helps clear up some things
Also it's nice to not have to worry about the normals getting screwed up during the modeling process and then to have to go back and correct them. So far I have been getting pretty good results by setting up multiple materials with different smoothing angles depending on what I want.
Given all the advantages of Modo I think i'll just have to get used to it.
Glad I could help, yeah stick with Modo I'd hate to see you give up on it just because of the lack of a good smoothing group workflow.
@OblastradiusO:
I hate to say it but "it depends". In Unreal if you've got a normal mapped organic object (meaning no 90 degree angles) it's usually best to stick to one smoothing group. But like I said in an earlier post sometimes you end up having to model at a low triangle count and just can't spare any extra tris for nice beveled edges on sharp angles. Then you need to separate those edges with smoothing groups, otherwise you'll get nasty shading errors.
Another situation that smoothing groups/split edges is necessary is when you need to display the same model sometimes with a normal map and sometimes without a normal map. If said object has any sharp edges it won't hold up well without a normal map and separate smoothing groups.
One other situation that smoothing groups/splitting edges is necessary for good results is when you need to share the same texture across multiple objects but they have different mesh topologies. That's when getting rid of the "shading" in the normal map and just having the edge and bump info is useful. In that case you need to use smoothing groups in order for the vertex normals of the low poly mesh to be flat for the bakes.
Ok, I think we've successfully derailed this thread, lol :poly136:
MODO RULES!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :poly127:
There, that's better
For the baking, you can just manually cut up your model to get hard edges, bake the normal map, then merge the model back together again, it's what I always do, and it works just fine
http://www.zspline.net/blogs/blog.php/2009/04/21/modo-to-unreal-part-1
I was using version 1.07 of that script with Modo 401 for my previous example. It looks like there is a new version of the script is on that site.