CompuServe Messages

John, Thanks for the comments. After I re-read that comparison I realized I left out a lot of features from both programs. Face mapping is a great feature and I apologize for neglecting it. Another biggy that I left out was the hold and fetch features. In Lightwave I left out depth of field and soft edges, which dramatically improve output quality if used correctly. I didn't do a very good job of describing envelopes either. Try getting some hands-on experience with metaform. If I had to choose between metaform and a quality patch modeler, I'd probably take metaform. Although it lacks the precision available with a patch modeler, it is much faster. The more I work with it the better I like it. To truly judge the output difference between the two programs, try importing any 3DS scene into Lightwave (or vice versa). Set up your texturing, lighting, and camera to match the 3DS mesh. Render it and compare them side by side. If you can, render them at print res and output them to a decent dye-sub, or better yet, film. You'd be surprised how similar scenes without raytracing or depth of field are. 3DS has better looking soft shadow edges. Lightwave's shadow-mapped lights are harder to get decent edges with, but I think they cast more accurate shadows. 3DS also handles "perfect" metals better. Deep bump maps look better in 3DS. Lightwave contains more detail in shadows, and this translates into a greater sense of depth. If you're after photorealism this is a biggy. Also, Lightwave seems to be slightly better at properly creating accurate specular highlights. When you add ray tracing, depth of field, and soft edges the differences are undeniable. Refraction, IMO, is far more important than ray traced reflection. I can deal with reflection maps, but not the loss of refraction. In general Lightwave looks more realistic than 3DS. I realize sometimes this isn't desireable. Clients often prefer the look of their logos when done in 3DS. Looking at the industries that are dominated by each program reiterates this. 3DS is huge in the gaming and low-end television industry. People in these industries are primarily concerned with price and how soon they can get the finished product. Quality is often a distant second. Lightwave dominates the broadcast television industry, where quality is the primary concern. I agree with you on the productivity issue. It is easier to churn out more animation with 3DS than Lightwave. The reason I use 3DS for quick and dirty animations isn't due to a rendering speed increase. (With 2 Raptor II's I can render faster with Lightwave.) It's because I can set up simple animations faster with 3DS. If an animation doesn't need the best output and has simple motion I use 3DS. Which program I use also is influenced by what format the animation is being output to. Lightwave, mainly because of it's excellent procedurals, looks much better than 3DS at high resolution. Where I work, quality is much more important than quantity. If they need better productivity, they hire more animators. I suspect that this is different where you work. Anyway, with the 4.0 upgrade, most of the productivity differences will be nullified. Right now I actually use 3DS more than Lightwave, I just like Lightwave better. It will be interesting to see what becomes of the PC 3D animation market when Lightwave hits next month. The heat will definitly be on Autodesk. I don't think programs like Truespace and Animation Masters can compete with Lightwave, which will be in the same price range. The real question is can 3DS, with its inflated price, compete?