[glebe digital]

Yeah I can see that point very much, but I effectively use Studio as an 'extended plugin' albeit in a manual way. It certainly won't ever replace LW, but it isn't trying to. Thinking of Studio as a main-app replacement would be sheer lunacy.......I don't think anyone out there's suggesting that.

.....This point of not having to learn anything new.........that's my main thrust re: bicycles. If we use computers and 'never learn anything new' we go out of business quicker than sh*t through a goose.

[Maxer]

Well I'm not disagreeing with you but my point was that if the plugin works the way it should there is no need to use Studio and therefore no need to learn it. I think most of us can agree though that the plugins should have the same priority put on them as Studio has.

[Maximus3D]

Some functions and features Studio has might not be possible to implement into the plugins, SDK limitations and such..

/ Max

[glebe digital]

Well I'm not disagreeing with you but my point was that if the plugin works the way it should there is no need to use Studio and therefore no need to learn it. I think most of us can agree though that the plugins should have the same priority put on them as Studio has.

Agreed re: the plugins......every home should have one.
Max has a good point there, maybe it's too big a task to get full functionality in the plugin form.........

In terms of development priorities, personally I go for native 64-bit operation....

[juan]

Hi all,

Thank you for your feedback. We know that both ways Studio and plugins are necessary; we do not pretend to force you to choose one of them but allow you to choose the best workflow for each case. We know that plugins are essential for a lot of people and we have improved the plugins team to achieve the best quality. At the same time the development of Studio continues but this is not taking development time of plugins.

Regards,

Juan

[x_site]

I hope so Juan... no amount of persuasion will ever make me use studio... but like many other people i feel users of the plugins are not getting the best deal.

[Rochr]

I have a lot of sympathy for those who don't have a workable plug, it's obviously a real pain if it's your only route in. Maybe you're right, development should be biased towards this at the moment.........[especially as v1.1 [via the Studio] is such a solid piece of kit right now].

On the other hand, comments like 'I will NEVER use the studio' make absolutely no sense to me at all. Could someone please explain to me why the Studio is such a dogs-dinner and can't be considered under any circumstances?
At present, it's sounds like the unicyclist who won't switch to two wheels on a matter of principle........even when the unicycle has a puncture and the seat's been knicked.

The circumstances depends on what type of scenes you´re dealing with.
In my case i model cityscapes and scenes that all have thousands of objects in them. When dealing with these scenes as well as an insane amount of polys, you really don´t want to start converting and triangulating that amount of objects/polys. If Maxwell wouldn´t crack by the sheer size of the end result, your machine definitely would.

The second problem is that i have a huge amount of materials suitable for my needs that i wouldn´t be able to use. A lot of dirty/cracked/dented materials and alpha masks for example, where the latter are a complete PITA to work with in the new materials editor, especially if you need to resize them.
And i honestly fail to see the point in starting to build a new materials library, as long as we´re forced to redo all those materials for every new release.

And the last issue is that i always alter/model elements in these scenes up to the last minute when it´s time for the final render(remodel part of a building, changing curvature on a few cables etc). Although i´m sure you can rotate/resize objects in Studio, you can´t move any points or polys without having to go back to the modeler, re-convert and re-import the specific parts into Studio again.

For me it´s an easy choice. I would under no circumstances use Studio for what i do, because even if i could, it would significantly increase both the time creating a scene, as well as terminate an already excellent workflow with a number of unecessary and time consuming steps.
If it would actually save me some time, i wouldn´t be having this discussion at all, i would already be using it.

[JTB]

All of you need to remember that Maxwell was originally sold as a "PLUGIN" for your 3D app, Studio came much later for reasons that have never fully been explained. IMO the plugins should be given as much attention as Studio if not more, it's ridiculous that some functions are available in Studio but not the plugins.

Allthough I would erase the word "ridiculous" - I would prefer the word "strange"- I must agree that this is how Maxwell was introduced to us. A plugin means that NL has to make maxwell work with our app and not the other way.

[garyswindell]

*** THE MOST IMPORTANT THING OTHER THAN THE CORE ENGINE IS THE SDK!!! *** With a working SDK the possibilities are endless. Sure it takes a bit of work to kick out a working exporter but at least it's possible. That is a very critical thing. The argument about studio vs plug-ins is always secondary to this point. (IMHO)

[glebe digital]

Rochr, how many polys are you talking about?
I've just loaded an 860k+ poly scene [came in layered by texture name] and it's saved the mxs in 5 minutes, mxcl booted in 4.
I haven't hit the ceiling on a job so far so I don't know where it is yet.

In terms of your texture library, no I would not enjoy resaving every single one for use, but surely you'd do that on an 'as required' basis? Gradually you'd build up an mxm library over time, not all in one hit.
Fixing my useful materials from RC5/v1.0 to v1.1 didn't take more than an hour or two of downtime...

On the last minute changes front, I don't generally port to MWR until the model is done, signed off and ready for final materials selection. If the client wants to pay extra for WIP MWR renders on complex projects then they can have that too.......it all just comes down to money.

Using MWR, texture/lighting is way faster than the same process in Lightwave.......so it saves me time in the long run.

[Frances]

*** THE MOST IMPORTANT THING OTHER THAN THE CORE ENGINE IS THE SDK!!! *** With a working SDK the possibilities are endless. Sure it takes a bit of work to kick out a working exporter but at least it's possible. That is a very critical thing. The argument about studio vs plug-ins is always secondary to this point. (IMHO)

I think that would be a priority for developers and not users. As users, we don't really care what is going on behind the giant curtain (the one with the perfect satiny texture and etherial sub-surface scattering). I've done my share of programming exporters and would rather leave that in the past. I'm content with my status as greedy end-user.

[Rochr]

Rochr, how many polys are you talking about?

On an average, around 2-3 million, sometimes more.
Unfortunatly, i´ve already hit the ceiling more than a few times, but that part is not Maxwells fault.

In terms of your texture library, no I would not enjoy resaving every single one for use, but surely you'd do that on an 'as required' basis? Gradually you'd build up an mxm library over time, not all in one hit.?

Agreed. But your clients probably ask for realistic materials. Non of mine do, so i haven´t had any reasons for using the materials editor.
I´ll probably start learning it for personal projects once we have a standard, but for now materials creation is a far quicker process in C4D.

On the last minute changes front, I don't generally port to MWR until the model is done, signed off and ready for final materials selection. If the client wants to pay extra for WIP MWR renders on complex projects then they can have that too.......it all just comes down to money.

Here we work very differently. I always do a series of test renders before the final one in order to fine tune lights, materials and camera position.

[DrMerman]

Oh how I'd like to get my hands on glebe's useful material selection.... (Mine consists of a wood texture I dont like)

[garyswindell]

I think that would be a priority for developers and not users. As users, we don't really care what is going on behind the giant curtain (the one with the perfect satiny texture and etherial sub-surface scattering). I've done my share of programming exporters and would rather leave that in the past. I'm content with my status as greedy end-user.

Yes but once the SDK is there the universe of possible developers goes from tens of people to thousands of people. Clearly users don't want/need it but they benefit greatly by it in time.

[garyswindell]

And, to NL's credit, it's a pretty signifigant task developing a software application AND plug-ins for meny different packages with a small team of developers. They brought the task on themselves, but even so it is an almost inhuman task.