# 3D-Studio better than L
01-Oct-93 02:32:57
Sb: #35203-# 3D-Studio better than L
Fm: GREG TEEGARDEN 71175,3026
To: Steven Walters 70524,634
This message is directed to anyone who want's to know…
So which is better? 3D Studio of LightWave? Answer: Depends on what
you want to use it for. As a guy who uses Studio at home and
LightWave at work, I can safely say that both offer exceptional tools
and are equally innovative at bringing high end type features to the
desktop. I've read through the various posts in this thread, and as
far as LightWave is concerned, I wouldn't disagree with whats been
said, but Autodesk deserves some recognition here.
When I first started working at my present job, I was hired as a 3D
Studio model maker. Because the rest of the production used
LightWave, it became painfully obvious that I needed to learn it too,
because all the models I did in Studio had to be ripped apart and
renamed once in the Toaster, a very time consuming process, better
done as the model is being built.
The first thing I noticed about LightWave and Modeler was the lack of
a local axis system. I also hated the splines, and still do. They
don't have "handles" on them. Also, the lack of being able to move
around an objects pivot point was a real nusince as well in
LightWave, although because of our screaming it now has that. I also
missed the Track Info Dialouge Box, the Materials Editor, the Lofter,
did I leave anything out? The one thing I did notice however was
the incredible output quality of LightWave. That alone held my
intrest. I've watched the program grow from early beta to whats now
the current release, and I've have to say I'm impressed. I've also
caught a glimps of R3 of Studio, and to be honest I'm somewhat
dissapointed. It looks like all the work went into the Materials
Editor, and not enough attention was given to the rest of the
program. Because I haven't actually used it yet, I obviously can't
make a final judgment. Perhaps 3D Studio's biggest stumbling block
in it's current release is it's poor output quality. While I've
heard this has been addressed, what I saw at SIGGRAPH still didn't
look as good as LightWave. I've tried real hard to create the same
quality of work here at home that I can do at work and it's just not
possible, and believe me I've tried.
While it's true that Studio has IPAS support, I think it's unfortunate
for users to have to pay extra for them to get the kind of cool
effects that LightWave users take for granted, like Lens Flare,
Displacement Mapping, Skeletal Deformation, etc. Some of the IPAS
routines I've seen are very cool, and have their place outside the
main interface, more of what I would call these *basic* features
should be part of the $3000. price tag. Also, although I said I hate
LightWave's splines, becuase you can build spline cages and "patch"
them, you can create shapes and objects that would be extremely
difficult, if not impossible, with Studio's Lofter. Try creating a
negative in the lofter; it won't let you.
So what's the verdict? If all your doing is industrial grade
animations, accident reconstruction, architectural walkthroughs and
flybys, 3D Studio is a good bet. The new networking option for batch
rendering sounds very cool if you already have a bunch of machines,
and it's pretty quick at putting together anmations without much
fuss, and it's fast a renderer. If you want more polish though,
LightWave is the better choice. It has more "high end" features than
Studio, and it is cheaper besides, a definate plus as far as I'm
concerend. I couldn't wait 3 months ago for R3 of Studio, but I can
say now that I'll be getting my own Toaster soon instead.