In Lightwave, is there a way to precisely control an object's (as in a mesh, vertex, or whatever) position, orientation and scale? Specifically is there an interface in which you can type the absolute or relative values for X position, Y position, Z position, X rotation, Y rotation, Z rotation and scale? 3DS MAX 2.5 (the software I currently use) has this functionality, and I'd like similar functionality in whatever future software I buy. Thanks in advance!
I've only used a ten-year-old version of 3D Studio MAX, so I can't answer this question directly, but I would imagine that, as with MAX, if you follow the tutorials that come with the application, and take a look at tutorials online, then you should be able to pick up the basics fairly quickly.
I would strongly recommend buying a video training course. LightWave isn't exactly the most intuitive software to use, and there's nothing like watching someone actually guiding you through the arcane steps required to create and animate a model. The courseware by 3dgarage.com is excellent... I learned on their v7.5 discs. If you're taken aback by the $179 price tag, all I can say is that if you've already spent a thousand bucks buying LightWave, you can invest another $179 for courseware that will teach you how to use the thing.
I myself invested in some of the Lightwave Applied books, again not a cheap option. There is a Discovery Version of Lightwavve which you can order for free from Newtek at their website, and it will allow you to try out Lightwave and see how you get on. It's limited in what it can save and what it can output in terms of finished pictures, but it will let you see the interface in action.
They had a downloadable trial program where you could use Lightwave for a month with all the features (like saving stuff) for free. The site currently says that there's an "update in progress." I don't know what they mean by that, or when and if it'll come back.
A friend of mine who's a professional commercial producer/editor tried for two or three years and was never satisfied with the look of his work.
They're probably updating it to be a Discovery edition of the recently-released version 9.3, I'd imagine. I would be very reticent to blame LightWave for your friend's dissatisfaction... if an artist doesn't know what he's doing, it's not going to matter which 3D software package he's using. I've seen talented people produce amazing images with POV-Ray (which doesn't even have a graphical user interface!) and I've seen absolute dreck from people who brag about having spent thousands of dollars on Maya. With few exceptions, it really boils down to the talent of the person wielding the tablet pen, not the feature set of the software being used.
Agreed. If the guy is good he can work with almost anything, and you cant fix stupid. If you like an interface and its intuitive to you, then you'll do more great work with it than with the most expensive program which you cant wrap your head around. All you can do is suck it and see.
Yeah, uh, thanks for calling my friend the award-winning commercial producer/videographer/editor stupid just 'cause he's not satisfied with his own 3D attempts. Nor did I say anyone blames LightWave. He freely admits his limitations.
Now let's not get too heated up guys. There's also a certain amount of affinity for a program. I've been using Lightwave for over a decade, starting out on an Amiga 2000. Now I'm running 7.5 on a Mac G4, and I finally have enough speed and horsepower to start using some of Axeman and other folks tutorials and make some progress. On the other hand, I have tried to get into Blender for a couple of years now, which everyone tells me is so much easier and more intuitive, and I have trouble creating a ball. There's a lot to be said for what you learned in, and whether it suits your working style. Play nice, kids.
I miss my Amiga 2000. Never could afford the Toaster. I was pretty fair with Sculpt/Animate 4D, though.
Oooh, sorry, you picked that up wrong. I didn't call your friend stupid, I'm saying if someone is good they'll make you look bad whatever they work with. If someone is useless at it, then no interface in the world will make him ILM material. I meant any guy, not your specific guy. Damn, I hate when that sort of thing happens.
In terms of performance, this never seems to make a difference. That's as much due to the programming tools still mainly being built around 32-bit paradigms, though. In theory, 64-bit should process data in larger chunks and thus should be a lot quicker. Doesn't work that way so far, though. What you DO get is a lot more memory availability. The max limit for Win32 is 4GB of addressable memory (and that INCLUDES the video memory and other blocks). That's never really been a HARDWARE limitation, but rather something that Microsoft decided on a while back. Part of the "forcible upgrade path" scheme they (and others, obviously) want to walk us along. Basically, I currently have about 3.4GB of CPU-addressable RAM in my system (though I have four 1GB sticks installed). This is the main limitation on running large assemblies and so forth. I could never load up a full 787 CAD model. But with a 64-bit OS and app support, I could load what seems, today, to be almost unlimited amounts of data... the full 787 in one machine, limited by the PHYSICAL memory present rather than by some arbitrary Microsoft-decided "top limit we think you should have right now." SO... if you're gonna work with HUGE models, with tons of detail, and intend to have more than 4GB of memory installed... you'll see some benefits to the 64-bit version. Otherwise, it's not really worth the effort. IMHO, of course.