There is a quick favorites tool in blender. It’s not the same as a shelf but still useful for adding tools you like and use often. It’s has the q shortcut. Right click on a tool and add to quick favorites.
Yes, ivé seen it…not exactly what I wanted though…I think, I actually need to try the workflow before judging
Another addon I can recommend is command recorder. It’s like a macro recorder, very much like actions in photoshop. You record actions you do and can then replay them to repeat the action. Very useful.
And if you hover over the button area and hold down the CTRL button while using the middle mouse button, it will allow you to seamlessly scale the buttons.
I suppose, but ask yourself why anyone would want to do this (anyone outside of LW users)? I have used something like OD before while modeling stuff between apps. But for seasoned users of other 3d packages, there’s nothing in Modeler that will attract users to it.
Granted, LWCad is nice, but a costs quite a bit of money. Modeler without those commercial plugins is, frankly, just not worth the bother. It hasn’t seen much updates in almost two decades. It’s dreadfully behind the times. Heck, no sculpting in Modeler means it is an automatic fail for modern character workflows anyway. No non-destructive modeling, modifiers, etc.
Instead, the money is much better spent on dedicated plugins to improve modeling operation in a user’s familiar DCC.
And it is difficult to imagine that anyone, who already is working in and familiar with their 3D DCC environment, would want to use Layout for its rendering or animation since all DCCs have good/great render engines and animation options. Why go through the trouble of resurfacing your models in LightWave, if great external render engines with native plugins for your 3d app exist?
And LightWave is not free. But even if it were, I just can’t see anyone leaving their DCC for Modeler, even for the odd task here and there. Just too inconvenient for most. And the split between Modeler<->Layout is, again, not going to work in LightWave’s favour. at. all.
Thank you! Somehow never heard of that plugin. Truly useful!
That was under the assumption that Lightwave was free, wasn´t it?
that is very subjective statements from you only…many others will chime in, while others will say you are wrong.
You can not bridge with a spline bridge for instance in blender, wouldn´t you want that feature in blender, I sure as hell would…there are some options out there, but nothing that really replaces it, ive discussed that in another thread.
I actually prefer bevel controls for lightwave when it comes to face beveling, with right clicking and scaling in the bevel at once with extrude offset…perhaps there is some way to in blender?
But unless you do not perform that kind of modeling actions…you do not need it…so it´s highly subjective.
And it´s not about leaving, it was about complementing and use lightwave…if it was to be free as a tool.
Do you honestly say that no one would even touch the fingers on to lightwave…even if both layout and modeler was free to complent blender? for the very reason that blender can do everything lightwave can…that very statement in itself would sort of label every lightwave user out there as idiots still paying, still upgrading.
And it is simply not true that blender can do everything lightwave can.
I also feel it´s faster to work with spline curves in Lightwave and more accurate where I need them, no fuzz…rather than blenders curve tools, and how they are started when you add them, and not plotting but extending them…but then again, blender curves so much more powerful for other things…but for fast model sessions when I need them…i prefer that.
And while some may chime in on that…I won´t.
I was sort of attacked by Cageman on newtek forums for as coming across as too negative in regards to lightwave, and here it is always the opposite, where I am judged as the foremost lightwave crusader…some fun notes on that, in my perspective…none of it holds up to any real truth.
So many that can not take criticism properly and deem it negatism…just because you put it out harshly that things are not adressed well.
One of Lightwave modelers tool I miss, and I also mentioned that it was easier to work with centering pivot points where you need it…in lightwave…at least faster, Ztreem pointed out rotation limits…but yeah, none of the software is perfect …thus you may want to use any of them where needed.
The thicken tool is quite instant in Lightwave, while you have to add that solidify tool in the modifier tab for blender …it justtakes longer time…but perhaps if you script it or add this recorder macro perhaps.
Thanks for that.
Ohh…yes, blenders curves are so powerful and non destructive until you make them a mesh that is, and all the bevel profiling you can do etc.
But, simply tapering a curve directly in the curves setting? I can not see a way to do that…I thought there was a way…but I must have been mistaken?
taper without another bevel profile object, while I can do that directly in the settings with pictrix bezier curve for lightwave
Don´t get me wrong here, I know there is difference in non destructivness etc…that is not the point here, when I know exactly when and what kind of curve and profile I want, I want it as fast as I can…and thus I think using a more direct tool is to prefer sometimes, not always.
So can blender taper the end curve in one go without the need to set up other curves?
EDIT…FOUND radius…weird…but it works.
For a plain modeling session, you are of course always in edit mode in lighwave and can draw as spline right on with no fuzz, blender you have to enter edit mode, then add a curve, which you may not want…then acces the draw curve.
You can also as I suggested before use this addon then you can draw curves in object mode.
It’s really good if you want to add a python script to a button and don’t want to do all the gui code.
Is this a joke thread?
Nah, must be an elaborate hoax. Newtek doesn’t make anything new or useful anymore.
It does have Spline Bridge though, from this thread you would get the impression, that it will be worth paying over 1000 bucks just to add that one tool to your modeling arsenal (to heck with Blender’s own Hard-Ops or Decal Machine).
If you read my statements carefully, you hopefully noticed that it’s not really a matter of certain features being “better” or present in one app compared to another one, but rather about the reluctance of most users to leave their main familiar software.
Users are absolutely prepared to work with more specialist tools such as Zbrush and Substance Painter, or invest time and money in a dedicated render engine, plugin, and so on, if it provides them with an unequivocal workflow advantage (which could be based on efficiency, speed, quality, etcetera).
But you can’t expect most users to be interested in leaving their main DCC for trivial stuff such as a spline bridge move, or They will struggle along with their own software, and come up with a workaround first.
I see this behaviour all the time in users (including myself). If your app is good enough for you, you will not be inclined to look elsewhere. However, once your favourite and familiar app becomes a hindrance, then you will be prepared to invest time in alternatives, or look for specialist software or a plugin that will fix that particular workflow issue.
But to leave one’s main DCC? That requires a major shift of thinking in most users.
That is why I KNOW that, even IF LightWave were free, most users would be reluctant to invest time in it. They would probably download it out of curiosity, encounter the utterly ALIEN Modeler<–>Layout split (while every other 3D DCC offers an integrated flexible efficient workflow), and discover (if they bother investing a little time) that Modeler and Layout don’t really offer anything special or better over their existing DCC app.
My opinion is based on experience and user behaviour insights. By far most users would rather continue using their familiar software rather than switching to something entirely different. Users are like mules in that respect - better the devil you know, than…
The fact that you Prometheus are looking into Blender was first instigated by frustrations in LightWave, and you were looking for a solution. The latest v2020 only worsened the situation for many veteran LightWave users, but even with Newtek’s mistreatment and UTTER disrespect towards its customers, STILL do we see a number of seasoned LW users entrench and delude themselves that “things are looking up” and “the next version will be better”. If that is not a confirmation of that same user behaviour, I don’t know what is. I have seen it with SoftImage, with TrueSpace, with Fireworks, Freehand, and so on. Many users will stick with their familiar software to the ends of the earth.
Ask yourself: what major issue or (hidden) gap / user need does LightWave solve or address compared to other DCC apps and more specialist software such as Zbrush? What is LightWave’s niche or particular attraction?
What will effect the need for CHANGE in a user to even use LightWave modeler for a specific modeling function, and have them investigate LightWave?
Right, nothing. Absolutely. NOTHING. Nothing to lure existing 3d DCC users away from their familiar environments.
Not saying LightWave is terrible, or anything - it is not. It is a competent 3d app, but so are all the other 3D DCCs, and those offer modernized workflow(s), while LightWave is creaking and spluttering because of mismanagement by Newtek.
And meanwhile more and more LW users are leaving for alternatives, while an ever dwindling number of LW users entrench themselves more and more and more until they melt away in Earth’s core.
And what do you know, while messing with the quad view, I changed that default quad view toggle to “Q” since I felt that was easier, overriding the favourites menu, so when I now was about to recall the favourite menu with Q, I got quad menus instead…LOL.
So it goes, I think I will change my shortcut for favourites to something else, can´t use “f” though since I use create face often with skin mofifier and other actions, preferably a key that is only a one key command, will have to look for a good one that sticks with memory…perhaps just “M” for menu, seems it is an unused shortcut.
why do you even bring in “leaving their DCC” in this equation?
It´s not about leaving…it´s about complementing.
It wasn´t even up for discussion with the initial questions, it was to complement, it´s super easy to have lightwave open and just od copy and paste a shape mesh you have bezier bridged, and paste in to blender, use blender much better selection tools with deslect checker on edges and ctr click on polys to get that in to a poly selection and then extrude along normals…
Ive just tested this carve addon for blenderwith curve primitives to snap on to surfaces, and indeed powerful, but it´s not the same thing…you would need to remesh which would screw up the clean underlying poly structure, or you would have to go in and merge the mesh vertices from the poly surface to that of the curve surface…once the mesh is converted which you of course also have to do…so no, there is so far nothing like the bezier spline to be so smooth to work with.
At the same time I myself can not get any selection tools in lightwave to work so nicely as it does in blender…so both lightwave and blender will complement me on that.
I will try and record these process later, I will probably set up a webpage and embed some youtube vids on the whole lightwave & blender workflow…also including the simple stuff on how you camera target in lightwave and then in blender, how you add backrops, how you do a perspective camera match in lightwave and how you align camera to view in blender etc.
Alll for the good of just having a basis for everyone to bring up when a suggested workflow or tool could be made better…for both programs.
not even going in to that, Ive already disscussed it to lengths in other threads, and others as well…and it only went sour from people here that goes crazy and accuse any ideas on it, as to be cruisaders for lightwave.
Read my post on the lightwave spline bridge and how I can use it with blender,
No …I myself bougth in to lightwave for other reasons than the spline bridge, which actually is truly free as a free plugin, not the native one …but artspheres.
Kind of silly to think that all you would benefit from would be the spline bridge.
hard ops and decal machine can not perform the same task as spline bridge does, it may do much else of more value, that is a different thing and cant even be compared.
Seems you all guys are so biased to defend the philosophy of not even looking at lightwave…there is no need to, despite if there was some tools that could complement something in modeling or in rendering…the impression I get is that you can´t debate around it soberly and with reference to single tools or behavior that may work better in the other software, without adapting no…we do not need to leave or use anything else.
it´s like you all put yourselfs on piedestals to know exactly the ins and outside of Lightwave …which you don´t.
some may not it very well and a lot…but that´s a different matter.
Sure I suppose I may be one of the few ones (in here) that has any interested of working with both programs to complement, while most of you others don´t…that is probably where the language will differ in terms of how to discuss around all this…may have to shut discussions down unless some of you actually are interested to work with these two tools, or are willing to accept there are tools that may be better designed in other software…which blender could benefit from if adapted similar or better.
It was you who brought it up - with “leaving” I mean switching to another DCC to perform relatively basic operations. Temporarily leaving their favourite DCC and firing up an unfamiliar one.
I feel that you still do not quite understand what I wrote earlier.
Once a user feels familiar in a DCC they will not easily fire up another one as a complementing app, because they would have to first learn how to work with that new app. The learning curve and unfamiliarity will stop most users dead in their tracks. Even IF it were a free app.
Before the OD plugin can be used in LightWave, the user has to install it. It is a very different process how to accomplish this in each app. That is barrier number one. Most users will give up right there. (I am talking about users who have never used LightWave before). Next, they will have to learn the basic operation in LightWave. Barrier number two.
Only the most persistent users who REALLY need to have their issue fixed, and couldn’t find any workaround in their native DCC will persevere.
(The third barrier would be the financial cost involved.)
It is just too much to ask for from most users. They would rather stay in the familiarity of their own DCC.
Speaking for myself, when I first looked into Blender as a LightWave user, I first learned the basic operation of Blender, and still worked in LightWave for the most part. Then I switched to Blender for one project. I recall doing one or two things in LightWave, but fairly quickly after that first project I completely switched. I hardly touched LightWave following that decision.
Because it is inconvenient to switch for small operations.
Even with image editing I hardly leave PhotoLine - only if I have major stuff that I cannot achieve in it will I make the switch. For example, digital painting and drawing in Krita. Affinity Photo for panoramas or focus stacking. Instead, I look for plugins and other ways to work around the smaller blockages in PhotoLine.
That is why I am stating here that LightWave as a ‘complementary’ app is just not very attractive. Blender is attractive as one for LightWave users, because of the sculpting, for example. Or Eevee. Or the simulation stuff.
Things LightWave can’t do. Then is makes sense for a user to leave the comfort of their main creation app.
So, for YOU from YOUR perspective it actually makes sense to see Blender as a complement to LightWave, and vice versa. And you are completely familiar and comfortable with using LightWave.
But, look at it from the perspective of a Blender, C4D, Maya, etc. user: what does LightWave offer to them that would mitigate a major workflow issue that they may be having that some kind of plugin, other workaround, or specialist software (Zbrush, Substance Painter, etc.) couldn’t solve for them? (And obviously other factors like community support, tutorials, etc. come into play as well.)
Really nothing. There is no particular reason to use LightWave as a complementary app, because there is nothing in LightWave that motivates to scale and overcome those barriers for users unfamiliar to LightWave.
That is all I am saying.
I AM familiar with LightWave & LWCad (older version). And, outside of curiosity when a new version arrives, or conversion of LW objects/scenes, I have no reason to use LW as a complementary app for anything. Let alone trying to convince a user unfamiliar to LightWave. That will only work if they have a compelling reason to do so.
Now, I do still fire up my old C4D at times for tree and plant generation (XFrog plugin in C4d), because that is something very specialized and I am familiar with C4D at work). But I am thinking about switching to the Grove, because it is more CONVENIENT to stay in Blender when that is possible.
No not really…wouldn´t say I brought exactly that up,but theres really a language or semantics issue here, I talked about complementing, while leaving could be interpreted as something completely differently.
But now you have clarified what you ment, to switch program temporarely by “leaving”
I can agree on some of the rest, yes…for those not used to lightwave and installing, that would be a little threshold, but I think it depends on…someone would actually need to show what you can do for modeling task to complemente, a video tute or something as well as showing how to install both platforms for the OD plugin/addon.
Some will find it interesting…some will not.
But I do not agree with the last sentence, the financial cost, it was again based under the assumption that Lightwave would be free…and if such case…would there be a use for it for blender users because of that and some tools that could complement, and not based around a purchased license…I think you missed that.
The rest I do not need…or have time to go in to depth with, have not much to argue against or for to add to that.
Thanks for your thoughts Herbert, I appreciate them, though we may not fully agree.
I need to find time to record some of the Lightwave blender workflow, with a risc of it being quite a waste of time if no current blender user have any interest in it, it may however serve to motivate Lw users…still not utlizing blender enough… to take a look at it…of that I am sure.
No worries! It’s always interesting to have constructive discussions, and speaking for myself, I find these good to see and learn about different perspectives.
There are certainly aspects of LightWave that I would love to have in Blender, and vice versa. And with C4D, Modo, etc.
Anyway, I have started work on a personal project that I planned to work on for years now: a Space 1999 ultra-detailed Eagle Transporter. Got the MPC 22" and 14" kits, and it’s one of me all-time fave spaceship designs.
Off to work on the main thrusters now.