Thank you for doing a graet job of showing that Lightwave is still a very vibrant tool with a great future. Personally I am all about Lighwave and blender together. Both have great and amazing strengths and they are two major tools in my toolkit.
Most 3d artists overlook Lightwave but it is really great 3d software once you get the hang of how it works. The built in render engine is great quality but a little on the slower side but LW 2023 comes with Octane now so that makes up for that. It's definitely a secret weapon if you have it in your arsenal!
Cmon man, the spirit of LW will continue to live in Modo! The foundation of LW is old, nowadays archaic, they would need something special to resurrect it, but time doesn't stand still the other softwares are light years ahead now! Newtek had a good ride but it's over, hard times are coming for the whole industry at the advent of AI image generators!
Given Modo's development woes over the last 10 years, I'm not sure it's got a better future ahead of it than Lightwave. Lightwave's performance on large scenes still beats Modo and a few other 3D DCCs out there@@ferencszabo3504
I used Lightwave for 20 years and would have used it forever had they not dropped the ball around 2015. I use Blender now and gotta say I actually prefer it overall. Having said that I agree that the bone system was easier to use (but not that much easier), the weight painting (from what I remember) was also better. I also used turbulence which was so much better than anything blender had (has). The one thing that I do find works better is not having a separate modeler, especially when it comes to using morphs (Blend shapes) with characters, switching back and forth and never knowing quite how the morph would look was always very fiddly. As for the renderer, I found Cycles to be quicker overall and possibly a bit better, and now Blender has EEVEE it makes it a much better option for me (although UE is still way ahead of everyone there). Looking forward to see how Lightwave progresses though.
I use both, Lightwave and Blender. I use Lightwave since version 8 in film and VFX projects. I still use Lightwave today to model and animate complex objects (space-ships, robots or any other mechanical model). I do it in Lightwave because Lightwaves's pivot points, object layering hierarchy and animation system are far better than in Blender. I mainly use Blender for render (EEVEE). My work-flow is simple... I model, texture and animate in Lightwave, then export the scene via FBX to Blender. In Blender it is necessary to adjust some things that fail in the FBX import process (mainly related to materials / textures) but then, it is nice to render the scene in EEVEE. If Lightwave could receive a similar "real-time" render engine like EEVEE, it would be gold over blue. Blender's work-flow philosophy lets a lot to be desired (from my point of view)... don't get me wrong... Blender is a good and powerful tool and it is going in the right direction but Lightwave is faster, easy to learn and master and delivers anything needed "out of the box" for achieve fantastic VFX or CGI for film, TV, even a simple "light-flare" FX, something that Blender does not offers by default (only achievable by using external "fake" solutions). Anyway... its all good.
I still use lightwave for quick modeling and for LWCad (one of the best CAD, if not the best). Export is an issue. Collada seems to work pretty well. I mainly use Blender and Rhino, depending.
I use the 2023LW and it works great! For modelling and fast projects it´s the best software for me. For HumanIK i use Maya. I also used Blender 3.0 for a project, but LW is my first choice.....
Does LW support high polycount scenes like maya or at least coming close ? Im planing on transitioning as I value a company that gives perpetual licenses . Cheers mate !
I used to be a Lightwave user. I think there used to be a loyal community of Lightwave users despite the tough times. But they were betrayed too much. Now I use Blender and what I like most is the community and the variety of people pushing the limits of the software. The realm of integrated 3D software is so vast that you absolutely need a community (i.e. RUclips videos) to realize the true value of the software.
The best 3D Suite should contain... - Modelling like 3ds Max (incl. Modifiers and Movement) - Animation like Maya and Lightwave 3D 2023 - Texturepainting like 3DCoat - Sculpting like a mix between ZBrush and 3D Coat - Rendering like 3ds Max/Maya and fast as Octance - Free and Open Source like Blender I think, one is calling this "wishful thinking". ...but one is still allowed to dream.
@@OrionFilms that's great idea. To be honest i like cinema 4d for quick and easy modeling and clothes simulation. 😅 Because blender overwhelms with too much options. There should be one extra tab for Quick and easy mode. That would the job. 😅
i worked long time with Lightwave, and i loved the modeller. The interface is much more uncluttered than in Blender in my opinion. I wonder how LW change their Rigging System, because as far as i remember, it was a pain in the ass, compared to Softimage. At the last part a very important topic was brought up in the Video. Why ffs Blender has no full blown bridge to Unreal? This should be prioritized in my opinion. Maybe is the ideology to make everthing inside blender, but it's just don't possible. This is why software like Maya and Houdini advances. They are much better connected to the rest of the pipeline. And this is a very important key point in professional 3d Work.
Lightwave vs Blender. They're both fun to learn and are keepers in my book. The area where there seems to be a real difference is in the availability of current tutorials. There are far more tutorials for Blender (though not always great quality) than there are for Lightwave. Many years ago it was the other way around. Perhaps under the care of Lightwave Digital we may start to see an abundance of Lightwave tutorials out there as well. They're both fantastic applications and I think they compliment eachother very well. Having an effective path to learning them is what can make all the difference in their value. I'm currently running Lightwave 9.6 and Blender 3.3 because my iMac is too old to run anything more recent. Need a new machine before I can upgrade either one. I do wish there was a plugin to let Lightwave Modeler leverage a true physically accurate CFD solver like OpenFOAM so that you could truly test aerodynamic designs in Lightwave. Sort of an Aerodynamics take on LWCAD. Blender is getting closer to achieving that sort of thing but I really prefer Lightwave Modeler as a modeling environment.
I'm a longtime LightWave user, and although the edited examples of LW in this video are brilliant, Blender probably wins in most areas. Mainly due to the severe lack of development of LightWave for the past 15 years. However I am still hopeful that LightWave Digital can rectify it somewhat, but we'll have to wait and see. I think the guy who did this video is very lenient on LW, which is of course very kind. All great exposure for LW nonetheless :)
i started out with Lightwave, they used it in all my favorite sci fi shows, of the time but after a month of learning it, i realized, you needed to buy plugins, to do really cool stuff.. that was back then
Lightwave is good and also industrial standard most tracking softwares are compatible with it like boujour and pftrack can export directly to lw but let’s not forget that the flexibility Blender provides with addons is epic and sidefx still can’t beat that ❤
I was Andrew Bishops first employee btw at premier vision started the Amiga centers of excellence... nice to see LW3D in his hands... feels like LW has come full circle and back home.
As a user of LW with 25 years of experience, I will say that today Blender is better than Lightwave. Lightwave 2023 has the main advantage - that it came out and gave hope to its fans to work with it in the future. So everything is in the future for Lightwave. But so far Blender beats it in many respects. Although the organization of work in LW is still better. I wish both wonderful programs a long and happy life!
Lightwave seems to handle physics better than Blender. Renders done in Lightwave have a certain pro quality to them. I've used blender since 2016 and the fast modeling tools have to be blenders main strength as well the fast cycles rendering and the coming of eevee next. I still dig Lightwave since it feels pro and stable to work with. I hope they catch up. I wish them the best.
yeah, about those shortcuts, i learned Blender after Lightwave..it was Blender 1.8, i bought the actual manual, in a bookstore, and it came with the software on a cd and the first thing said, in the manual...Blender was a 2 handed 3d software..one hand on the mouse, and the other on the keyboard that's why after learning that manual, another Blender book, and the software..i kept modelling with Lightwave.. i like icons, that tell you what to do, i hate memorizing shortcuts...because after a while, you get overloaded with them, not just Blender, but your operating system, and any other graphics, video, or music software that you use
Honestly, I love Lightwave a lot mote than Blender. Having two seperate environments for modeling and animating can be a life saver. I originally learned 3D animation on a free version of 3D studio MAX and since the animation and modeling tool where one it was often hard to not accidentally animate and destroy your model. That being said, Blender is open source and very little beats free. Also there are a ton of plug ins with it that do all sorts of things. Yet what I've have been doing with my older Lightwave and Blender is placed them into a workflow, since I am now using Unreal at the end of my pipeline anyway.
I like both and use both. Poly modeling with the two of them is similar and fun in both cases. I really like LightWave's Camera and Light handling. However, Blender's Walk and Fly modes are pretty close. I'm pretty crazy about Blender's bloom effects (too bad 4.2 made it a lot more complex to do) and I also like how Blender's design logic carries neatly though all of its 'modules' (once you know one part of Blender, you have a good chance to figure out the rest). LightWave seems to have tacked on a bunch of its features over the years, requiring the end-user to arrange his or her own menus to their liking. At the end of the day, they're both really good. And hey -- you can always send models back and forth between Blender and LightWave 3D and take advantage of both their strengths. P.S. I think it was implied in the video, but -- just to be clear -- LightWave does include Light Linking too.
LightWave built its user base through independent film & video production studios who bought a Video Toaster. This meant non-3D artists were jumping into the software and their work was driving feature development. This peaked in the 90s with the work being done by Foundation and others in Hollywood. At that time, LightWave was lower cost and had a better user experience than programs like 3D Studio. Its native renderer was also among the best around. But in 2023, there's no reason to be using LightWave. Blender is the rightful spiritual successor. Being free means it's now in the hands of anyone with an internet connection. The user base is massive and the UI went from clunky in the 2.7 series to professional in 2.8 and beyond. The features of Blender are sufficient to allow any indie studio to do everything they'd need, including final compositing. I started using LightWave back in the 1980s and literally wrote the book on it back in the 2000s. I love what the software was, just like I loved what my Amiga was. But I don't use an Amiga any longer. The PC does everything and more. And I don't use LightWave any longer, because Blender is simply a better piece of software.
@@erikals I'd be curious to hear what areas Lightwave is better than Blender in 2024. Hard surface modeling? Sculpting? Texture painting? Rigging? Arch Viz? I can't think of anything I did in Lightwave that I can't do as fast if not faster in Blender. And then there's all the things that Blender does extremely well that Lightwave still does not. Couple that with the community (many ex Lightwave users), the support by other software (which Lightwave never really had), the wide range of free add-ons, etc. I had fun with Lightwave but I can't think of any reason to pay for a seat of Lightwave today.
@@SteveWarnernot sure if i should answer it, since basically all my LightWave replies in this thread were deleted. seems like a Biased thread, or something.
@@SteveWarner - Toggling between Camera and Light view is simpler in LW3D. - Light linking is easier. - Camera and Light translation controls are also more intuitive. - Mirroring selected groups of polygons that are off-axis. - Vertex to polygon modeling (since LW respects point creation and selection order for any number of vertices). - Spline cage to quad modeling. - I'm not aware of a Blender equivalent to Spin Quads or Cut -> Maintain quads in corners. - Keyframing a different frame while on a frame that's already keyed. Great for when you need to see what the camera sees on the frame you're at while also needing to set an object or light's final position or rotation. E.g.) Light needs to pass precisely through a window at frame 30 to cast along the floor yet you need to set keys for other items at frame 90. Having said that, Blender offers a ton of great stuff, including many tools as modifiers instead of having to commit to changes, excellent glow effects, equally good render results, really powerful geometry nodes, and lots of extras like the VSE, 2D animation, and a compositor that's more feature-rich than LightWave's.
@@SteveWarner As mentioned in the video, with TFD now included + plus the Bullet Dynamics, LW is probably the better option for VFX. Its native render is more physically accurate than Cycles, and also comes with Octane Prime natively, which is certainly better than Cycles. LW doesn't have an EVEE realtime render, though...so, I guess it boils down to how often one would use a Realtime engine for production work. Blender certainly has a bigger 3rd party community, but they pretty much have to cater to a community that expects things to be free or dirt cheap. That's why many 3rd party render engines avoid Blender, and when they do offer a plugin for Blender, it's typically limited compared to support for it in other 3D apps. Octane has a plugin for Blender, but IIRC, you have to install a separate Octane for Blender version. This is where being FREE is more of a liability, because some of the best plugins in the industry won't come to Blender despite its huge userbase. There are good reasons to use both and that is what I plan to do.
Wow. What a nice surprise to hear from lightwave again. Newtek has an interesting story i think. They were recently bought out by a broadcast graphics production company but they kept the name for branding. Looks like they let lightwave live on as a separate project.
I've spent most of my career hearing about all of Lightwave's shortcomings. Nevertheless, I've never used any 3D software as powerful, and by powerful I mean that it enabled me to quickly achieve just about anything I could think of. I love Blender too, although I have not been using it very long. Lightwave went down due to criminal neglect and mishandling, not because it was lacking in capability. In that respect, it is somewhat like Softimage. Softimage was a fantastic 3D software, but was overtaken by the almost shamefully inferior Maya for a variety of reasons that had nothing to do with the software itself. It amazes me how "industry standard" software is often so lousy, as with Maya for VFX and AutoCAD in architecture. Good marketing, I guess. I much prefer something like Blender, or Lightwave, they are configured for the individual creator. You don;t need an engineering team to get them to deliver something usable.
The amount of bugs a relative of mine encountered while trying to learn Maya left me with the impression that it actually required a subscription to tech support to clear those hurdles.
Hey Steve. It's been a long time since the days at Foundation. We did a lot of incredible stuff using LightWave back then. Blender has really improved since 2.78. It's packed with a lot of features. The interface still seems a bit cluttered to me but it's way better than it was. LightWave, as far as the Layout portion goes is just so easy to set things up like you were dressing a set. I wish Modeler had gotten more attention over the years but there are plenty of modeling apps out there and with the addition of a few 3rd party tools like LWCAD and some from 3rdPowers, Modeler is still a viable tool. I was pleasantly surprised to hear of LightWave's resurrection. I know the team has a lot of work ahead of them to bring it up to times but I'm happy to support the effort. I've used LW for well over 25 years professionally and I think it still has a few tricks left.
Interesting comparison. I've used Lightwave professionally since 1998, and I still finish most of my CG work in Lightwave 2015, but it's been essentially abandoned for years. Lightwave's newest owners are proceeding oddly. Blender offers a ton of great features, but it's clunky in so many ways, and it's been slow to implement necessary things such as light-linking, which Lightwave had over twenty years ago. Blender's interface is better than it used to be, but it's still an unattractive mess (I personally dislike its extensive, hard-to-remember shortcuts and nodes for everything). Since I know Lightwave so well, I often complete animations with it, bake everything, then bring that into Blender to add fancy Blender effects and rendering. I doubt I'll upgrade to the most recent Lightwave. I'm curious about one thing I don't think you mentioned: Lightwave has NEVER in past releases used Nvidia RTX cards to aid rendering (as Blender does), which makes its otherwise excellent rendering engine very slow as it uses CPU only. Does Lightwave 2023 rendering make use of graphics accelerator hardware?
LightWave has progressed a long way from 2015, and will progress further now new life has been breathed into it. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Blender does not use RTX cards to help CPU rendering - I don't think that would be possible. It can use the GPU instead of the CPU, something that LightWave users can now profit from with the inclusion of the Octane plugin for a single GPU. Users can later upgrade to a full version of Octane if they like what it gives them
It now ships with Octane included, but only the free version, which limits the use to only 1 GPU. This will surely change in the future and include also full GPU rendering as well natively. Currently you can buy an Octane license, or another render engine which works with LW to render with GPUs. But this was a good step forward already with the first new release under the new company and they added a lot of new stuff and improvements only in a few months time. They are fast moving in a good direction and developing LW quite strongly now.
Back in the days lightwave 7 was the only software can get me into 3d, it was intuitive and simple comparing to others. I couldn't get into maya and max even though by following tutorials. Lightwave didn't even have edge in modeling back then.
But what about the comparison of stability, speed of scattering tools, automation tools and collaborative project management, the number of polygons in the scene, the number of modifiers and operators, ease of writing scripts and plugins, scene management capabilities, context layers..??
LW with its 1000$ price tag can be a huge competition in the market. Hopefully they will be able to resurrect it and make it great again. Especially in this world of subscription only software, we need more options!
LW was the very first pro level 3D software I learned… 20 years ago. Right now I’m fully committed to Blender but I might have it a look out of nostalgia
@@amigarulez I agree in some aspects but after almost 20 years with Blender one builds a workflow and invest thousands of hours which one does not simply put on hold (or discard) just out of nostalgia.
This is a simple economic question. At $850 USD does lightwave 2023 offer a feature set that that is superior to what I can get in Blender with just a few hundred dollars of pro add-ons?. I have Flip fluids, hard ops/boxcutter Decal machine auto rig pro and faceit, Fracture/Kaboom, Random flow and I have not even come close to spending $800 on addons. Also you are completely wrong about Character animation by virtue of the fact that I Can not MODEL AND RIG/weight paint in layout with Lightwave IIRC. Does lightwave have a general purpose retargeter Like ARP. or any ARKIT based facial mocap animation options like we have with Faceit or the FREE landmark App that captures facial performance from video for ARKIT Faced Characters in Blender?.
Why would you be concerned with modeling in Layout when there's a Modeler? Weight painting can be done in Layout natively. Before that was possible (years ago) you would use a third party plugin.
How is fluid fire and smoke working for you in blender, while it is easy to set up, it works with all dynamic forces mostly, it is slow as hell to simulate, and the quality from either the old legacy fluid smoke and fire or mantaflow, is not good enough for really pro work, TFD fluids Is for lightwave is. That said with fluid smoke and fire, explosion in mind, flip fluids liquids, that´s a different story. But I am not sure if blender is capable of delivering good quality fire and smoke by simulating in blender, while I think Lightwave has proven itself with such renders.
Lightwave has a good smoke & pyro system but is it good enough to spend $1000 USD to access it when my FREE Houdini apprentice version exports smoke and pyro to VDB that I can render in Blender ? Again it is the economics of the current day market not the one of 2003. Maya,Cinema4D and Houdini based Pro studios are not even going consider LW 2024 ,at any price,as it offers nothing they do not already have. Pro game dev studios are using Maya and indies already have FREE Blender for content creation and Character animation and FREE UE5 and Unity. The Hobbyists from the Daz, Reallusion Iclone ecosystems all have FREE pipeline tools for Blender UE5 and Unity when they decide to level up So no need for them to spend $1000 on LW 2024. So who does that leave to buy licenses of this new version? Nostalgic old timers from the early 2000’s perhaps but how many of them remain to rebuild a modern day online knowledge base and community? @@PrometheusPhamarus
@@PrometheusPhamarusI can say with certainty that at a minimum, mantaflow is not capable of providing predictable and repeatable results. When you build a low resolution fluid simulation (because higher resolution sims take so long to bake) and you think it is good, once you raise the resolution all bets are off. The physics go crazy, water mesh is flying everywhere, obstacles become semi-permeable where before they wouldn't be. It is extremely frustrating.
Lightwave is missing a load of feature but what it has is efficient and industry standard. Blender was awful for many years but has rapidly become cutting edge and has a ton o features. I can't get into blender though as I love the simplicity and speed that I can work with in Lightwave whereas Blender just seems so difficult to do something basic. I just probably don't have the time to get into it. At the end of the day I probably only use less thana quarter of the features in Lightwave - it's huge. A lot of people rave about blender's feature but probably don't need or use most of them. Lightwave will get a cutdown streamlined version in the next year or so, possibly free too so it will be interesting to see how it goes. The developers are transitioning at the moment so it's going to take a couple of versions to get a more modern version up and running. If you are a freelancer like me then Lightwave is great in your toolbox if you need to add 3D elements in your work and you have tight deadlines. oh, not sure what you are talking about with keyboard shortcuts. If you use Lightwave then you know that literally everything can have a keyboard shortcut assigned to it and the UI is customisable in that way so if you are a blender fanatic you can assign the same keys to do the same things easily
Great Video, i forgot the amazing ChronoSculpt for polish finals animation and create Morphs... i need to take a look at LW 2023 that includes turbulenceFD 😬, i have never play with blender
2:28 LOL needed over 2 seconds to figure out it is NOT Blender... 😜 Totally forgot about lightwave. Tried the demo years back when I switched from XSI to Blender.
Keep in mind that TFD couldn´t..and I don´t think that has changed, render the fire and smoke with it´s own volumetric engine together with Lightwaves newer volumetric enginge, so fire and smoke trails on top of clouds that are made with the volume item in Lighwave can´t be done in a single pass, you have to render each element seperatly and activate the old volume engine, then the new one..Or, you go for octane rendering, or You have to export the fluids to vdb and import back. The native VDB rendering can however not perform any multiple volume bounce light scatter for clouds, or for fire, so either have to use octance, or render with the older engine and then use the build in multiple scatter in TFD, but that multiple scatter was..and probably is Extremely slow to the point of useless. So while the TFD addon is nice, I think it has some stuff to overcome, partly how to render with a new volumetric engine, that currently do not have multiple scattering, or to render with octane. TFD will also need to have some unification with the other dynamic wind forces, it can only use it´s own forces, not the same as bullet forces, and not the same as the particle wind forces, none of these dynamic forces work together ..so that is a problem. TFD needs to adress opengl Fire and smoke Visualisations, it only shows either fire, or smoke at once..so that´s not good enough, blender can show both at the same time. That said, TFD is so much faster to simulate the fire, since it is GPU and CPU based, and it provides a better solver quality for the voxels.
I used Lightwave professionally for 17 years, switched to Blender four years ago, and never looked back. Yes, Blender has "issues" with exporting rigs and animations to Unreal, but overall, you can't put Blender and Lightwave in the same sentence today! Blender is WAY BETTER for modeling, great for sculpting, fantastic node based procedural textures, painting... Try to do retopology in LW, good luck with that one!
@@rodneyschmidt3652 not at all. Of course there are better tools for retopo than blender, but there are great addons for retopo in Blender, and they do a great job. So, if there is a "better" tool for every stage, should I switch from tool to tool for every stage? Should I switch to another software just to do UVs? I would rather shoot myself. :)
@@goranmitrovic77The tools you use are your choice; but switching from tool to tool in order to use the best tool for a task is often what professionals often do. Using Substance for materials and UV, using Houdini for simulations, etc. I wasn't denigrating Blender, just pointing out that of the comparisons that could be made, retopo is a strange one.
Octane plugin is included in Lightwave 2023. You are able to get Octane Prime license for Lightwave 2023 which is a free license. Octane license is separate.
@@orphydiancg7759 The Octane Prime license only allows one GPU. The Lightwave group have taken over the maintenance of the Octane plugin, so it will be brought up to date to use the latest Octane version (it currently supports an older version), but you'll still need to buy an Octane license if you want to use more than one GPU or a render farm.
I just started looking at using Blender last week after years of using LW. I didn't even know there was an update. Still not 100% convinced unfortunately :(
I have the exact opposite opinion. Lightwave modeling tools are on another level compared to Blender. the hotkeys are customizable in XSI and the UI is customizable in Blender, so I don't think these are real problems.
I tried blender, did not like it, went back to lightwave because i know it inside out. Others may loke other software, and that's fine, but for me, I'm way faster in lightwave and I'm so happy they are updating it. I will happily invest my 1000 down.
afaik they can't because of some of the code written. just like Blender has some problems because of some of the source code licensing rules, like Tindal said.
my main issues I came from maya having a object mode and not having to work in layers. I cant stand the layer system having to model like this is a hard pass
It's becoming common that Blender is unfairly compared to paid software. Imagine open source software that is so good that it has absolutely no peer so it has to compete with paid software.
Yes. It has procedural geometry nodes in Layout, Turbulence FD smoke and fire simulation, instance painting, new Text tool, new node editor functionality, dozens of new tools, and the Unreal Bridge is getting an update to work with the current Unreal soon.
LIghtwave 2019 doesn't work on windows 10 on RTX 30X0 cards... from what i understand 2020 doesn't work either... if they don't work i don't see myself spending $700 on 2023 when i've already learned Blender and it works amazingly in windows 10 on an RTX 3060 Ti.. i've sent customer support and not a word from Lightwave Digital.. SAD!!!!
I used the LW 2020 demo on a Windows 10 system with a RTX 3070. It worked okay, but I didn't update because it broke compatibility with my old Lightwave textures, and I dislike nodes (one of my problems with Blender). I prefer layers, which is why I use After Effects instead of Fusion. A comfortable interface is often more important than modern features
@@FranklyPeetoons You can still use standard layers as a matierial. Also, no problems with 2018+ and 208xx and up cards. I have a 4060TI in my system now and it works absolutely flawlessly.
Blender is free and its possible to create all kind of art inside it. I came from 3ds max and it was very limited also it cost money. I love blender because I can focus on creating things without having to think about earning money to pay for the license
@ Inspiration Tuts please next time you ask me if you may distribute my animations on your channel. these are copyrighted works and may only be copied, modified and/or shown with my permission. By the way. Anyone who compares 3D programs with each other can't be that clever. The user is decisive, not which hammer he uses.
describing differences, as "comparing" is essential to let anyone make a decision on to what will work best for each user when they choose what to use, that is the way to do it and it´s more clever than not clever. Both software are great for different purposes, both have serious issues as well, to be aware of what those are, that is clever.
describing differences, as "comparing" is essential to let anyone make a decision on to what will work best for each user when they choose what to use, that is the way to do it and it´s more clever than not clever. Both software are great for different purposes, both have serious issues as well, to be aware of what those are, that is clever.
@@PrometheusPhamarus It makes no sense to compare something if the most important tool is ignored and that is the user. Yes, both software packages have advantages and disadvantages in terms of their functions, but that is the least of the problems. The bigger problem is often in front of the screen. In this respect, comparing software by only looking at the range of functions is pointless. What you can do with both software packages depends much more on the user's understanding than on the software itself. Put a paintbrush in the hand of a monkey and a paintbrush in the hand of van Gough and then learn what they both do with the tool. Then you realize that it's not the brush that paints the picture. :)
@@LightwaveGuru how should someone know which software is good/best for him. I think this channel is best because of these videos in which he tell the difference or comparisons let say between different softwares instead of spending months in free trials to try the software I think watching these videos and then move into the softwares can take a few days or weeks
@CGSTUDENT15 As I said. Comparing the software without those who use it is not practice-oriented. In practice, a 3D artist uses every tool he needs to do a job. I, for example, use a whole bunch of software from the Nurbs and Polygon cosmos. But that doesn't say anything about how well I've mastered this software. As I said. It's not the software that does the job. The job is done by the artist. We don't compare ourselves via the software we use, but via our demo reels / renderings.
@@RealFableFox Lightwave had its day. But it never modernized so theoretical libraries able to be included in LW is just users dreaming of what LW could be instead of what it is. Too far behind.
Hard pass - LW got stuck in the past, I wouldn't recommend it to anyone until the whole software is redone from the ground up. LW never got around that horrible layout - modeler split, which no other software had even back then. LW modeler was unbeatable for a while, it had crazy amount of all kinds of mesh editing and deformation tools.
TBH this video only makes sense as a clickbait, there is no comparison between these software - LW is a relict of a past with its past good and bad things, with some new features bolted on top, while Blender with all its problems is anyway a software that isn't stuck in the past and has seen considerable changes in the last 10 years.
The Modeler - Layout split is one of the best things in LW. We don't need LW to be just another software with unified 1 program environment, which every single other software is. LW brings a true choice in the industry in this matter and it's much better that way. You don't do everything in one place under the same roof typically in this world anyway in a lot of industries. On the contrary, it's usually better to separate processes and work in separate places for many reasons.
@@322ss Non-sense, LW is still amazing software and very capable and now with new development it is going forward very fast and is getting back industry share very quickly in the future without any doubt. Only in a few months under a new team it has seen a big leap forward already. Just watch and see.
@@-Mohog your opinion - and you don't have to preach to me, I started 3D with LW (well, some other software before that), used it more than a decade, LW was my go to software, but I'm not going to touch it ever again, unless they do real meaningful changes.
@@322ss You can do whatever you want of course, it's your choice. However LW is still great and will be among the top software again in every way without a doubt and is getting big meaningful developments and already has in its very first version and upgrade under the new company and team in just a few months. And sure my opinion is my opinion, but it's based on reality and facts and a lot of people's opinions align with mine out there. Anyway, everyone will choose what they regard the best for themselves of course. But isn't it regardless of each person's choice a good thing, that there is again this software being actively and strongly developed, which brings more choice in this industry? The more choice there is, the better.
As a Blender user, I can't accept a software which was dead since the 1990's came back and is better than Blender in animation. This is just an opinion and opinions vary from person to person
Well don't take the video too seriously, he didn't make much of any kind of comparison in any meaningful level. Lightwave rigging for example was always horrible, those skelegons they later added did pretty much nothing to fix things, so if you think Blender's armatures are crap, try LW. And managing animations and keyframes was pain.
1990 is an exaggeration. It's been more like 10 years since Lightwave has been used less and less in films and series. Battlestar Galactica ran from 2003 to 2009. Battlestar Galactica: Blood & Chrome is from 2012. Iron Sky is from 2012.
Since 1990's? That's when it all started and LW was an industry standrard since then for a long time. It has been less used only a relatively short time and now under a new company and an amazing team it will be back among the top software again.
@thebestone939 It's still used in the movies a bit :) Top Gun: Maverick used it, probably mostly for Pre-Viz, but those previz guys are incredible animators. Was also used in Green Book, Wind River, Onimusha, the animated series on Netflix, and more recent movies too that I can't remember. I don't disagree that character animation in LW is poor, but Chris Jones (who has since moved to Blender) did some of the best character stuff I've seen in any application, let alone lowly LightWave :D
when first showing the UI, I tought it was modo, modo was a piece of trash. I wasted almost 1000 USD on it. I went to Blender after modo, so happy I did. Lightwave was or maybe is a great software, but why in the earth should I pay for something you can get for free ? just saying
I was also using Modo before and learned many 3D stuff in it indeed, later I switched to Blender. I think Modo wasn't a piece of trash tbh. Why do you think it is crap just curious?
A Mac version is on the way. The new team had some problems out of their control which meant they couldn't make the release deadline for Mac, but it is a top priority for them and will be coming soon.
I hated Lightwave, litterally made a whole studio switch to maya that was using it because of how clunky the modeling is. Also you can merge multiple verts with blender just use merge by distance. Blender sculpting also has currective shape keying for sculpting.
"Also you can merge multiple verts with blender just use merge by distance" I haven't used lightwave since 7.X but I definitely remember you could do that too.
merge multiple verts? That function has been in LightWave forever. but surely, Modeler needs an upgrade, agree. LightWave is still the best Organic SubD Modeler around tho'
I've used a lot of 3d apps, and they all have their strengths and weaknesses. There are reasons a lot of users have kept using it, including myself. Blender does have a lot of great features, but I've found it clunky to use. That might change with 4 though :)
OMG, LW is still alive! It's amazing! It was far far 1998 I was started my first 3D experience with Lightwave!
me, too :D
And where is Brad Peebler these days?😅
Inmortal
@@ServusSovereign kind of alive, but way behind the pack now! Remember the Video Toaster? The one and only real genlock! 😊
Thank you for doing a graet job of showing that Lightwave is still a very vibrant tool with a great future. Personally I am all about Lighwave and blender together. Both have great and amazing strengths and they are two major tools in my toolkit.
Lightwave paid my bills from '97 to 2005 and an old version is still how I model for my side projects in VR and such
Same thing for me. I started with version 4.0 on a PC with Pentium 90 MHz. And in production LightWave is really effective.
Most 3d artists overlook Lightwave but it is really great 3d software once you get the hang of how it works. The built in render engine is great quality but a little on the slower side but LW 2023 comes with Octane now so that makes up for that. It's definitely a secret weapon if you have it in your arsenal!
Cmon man, the spirit of LW will continue to live in Modo! The foundation of LW is old, nowadays archaic, they would need something special to resurrect it, but time doesn't stand still the other softwares are light years ahead now! Newtek had a good ride but it's over, hard times are coming for the whole industry at the advent of AI image generators!
Given Modo's development woes over the last 10 years, I'm not sure it's got a better future ahead of it than Lightwave. Lightwave's performance on large scenes still beats Modo and a few other 3D DCCs out there@@ferencszabo3504
@@ferencszabo3504 Can you name a single signification animation/vfx studio that still uses MODO in 2023/4 as it's main modeling and animation tool?
@@ferencszabo3504 No one expected that in the end, it would be Modo who fell first
@@cafcacafca7766 yeah, just my luck, I really liked Modo since v2.01...it's a shame
I used Lightwave for 20 years and would have used it forever had they not dropped the ball around 2015. I use Blender now and gotta say I actually prefer it overall. Having said that I agree that the bone system was easier to use (but not that much easier), the weight painting (from what I remember) was also better. I also used turbulence which was so much better than anything blender had (has). The one thing that I do find works better is not having a separate modeler, especially when it comes to using morphs (Blend shapes) with characters, switching back and forth and never knowing quite how the morph would look was always very fiddly. As for the renderer, I found Cycles to be quicker overall and possibly a bit better, and now Blender has EEVEE it makes it a much better option for me (although UE is still way ahead of everyone there). Looking forward to see how Lightwave progresses though.
I use both, Lightwave and Blender.
I use Lightwave since version 8 in film and VFX projects. I still use Lightwave today to model and animate complex objects (space-ships, robots or any other mechanical model). I do it in Lightwave because Lightwaves's pivot points, object layering hierarchy and animation system are far better than in Blender.
I mainly use Blender for render (EEVEE).
My work-flow is simple... I model, texture and animate in Lightwave, then export the scene via FBX to Blender. In Blender it is necessary to adjust some things that fail in the FBX import process (mainly related to materials / textures) but then, it is nice to render the scene in EEVEE.
If Lightwave could receive a similar "real-time" render engine like EEVEE, it would be gold over blue.
Blender's work-flow philosophy lets a lot to be desired (from my point of view)... don't get me wrong... Blender is a good and powerful tool and it is going in the right direction but Lightwave is faster, easy to learn and master and delivers anything needed "out of the box" for achieve fantastic VFX or CGI for film, TV, even a simple "light-flare" FX, something that Blender does not offers by default (only achievable by using external "fake" solutions). Anyway... its all good.
I still use lightwave for quick modeling and for LWCad (one of the best CAD, if not the best). Export is an issue. Collada seems to work pretty well. I mainly use Blender and Rhino, depending.
I use the 2023LW and it works great! For modelling and fast projects it´s the best software for me. For HumanIK i use Maya. I also used Blender 3.0 for a project, but LW is my first choice.....
Does LW support high polycount scenes like maya or at least coming close ? Im planing on transitioning as I value a company that gives perpetual licenses .
Cheers mate !
@@thesteammachine1282yes, LightWave handles high poly count quite well.
The Modeler is a bit slow tho', but will be updated fairly soon.
@@erikals 👍👍
Lightwave was my first commercial software I actually loved using back in the early 2000s. It was the go to for commercials and movie work.
I used to be a Lightwave user. I think there used to be a loyal community of Lightwave users despite the tough times. But they were betrayed too much.
Now I use Blender and what I like most is the community and the variety of people pushing the limits of the software.
The realm of integrated 3D software is so vast that you absolutely need a community (i.e. RUclips videos) to realize the true value of the software.
There still is a loyal community of LW users.
We need more 3d softwares, more competitions make them upgrade their features....R.I.P softimage....one of the best.
"one of the best", no... at the time, SIMPLY THE BEST!!!
@@antoniocordoba6611 yes...but..rest in peace.
The best 3D Suite should contain...
- Modelling like 3ds Max (incl. Modifiers and Movement)
- Animation like Maya and Lightwave 3D 2023
- Texturepainting like 3DCoat
- Sculpting like a mix between ZBrush and 3D Coat
- Rendering like 3ds Max/Maya and fast as Octance
- Free and Open Source like Blender
I think, one is calling this "wishful thinking".
...but one is still allowed to dream.
modeling in blender is better than 3d max
Agreed!
@@OrionFilms that's great idea. To be honest i like cinema 4d for quick and easy modeling and clothes simulation. 😅 Because blender overwhelms with too much options. There should be one extra tab for Quick and easy mode. That would the job. 😅
@@Userdoesnotexit 在blender里硬表面建模就是降维打击，相比之下MAX的修改器千层面虽然有自己的优势，但是放在今天太笨重了，连石墨工具也是10年以前的。👱♂
I strongly agree~!
i worked long time with Lightwave, and i loved the modeller. The interface is much more uncluttered than in Blender in my opinion. I wonder how LW change their Rigging System, because as far as i remember, it was a pain in the ass, compared to Softimage.
At the last part a very important topic was brought up in the Video. Why ffs Blender has no full blown bridge to Unreal? This should be prioritized in my opinion. Maybe is the ideology to make everthing inside blender, but it's just don't possible. This is why software like Maya and Houdini advances. They are much better connected to the rest of the pipeline. And this is a very important key point in professional 3d Work.
as someone who got tired of trying to do everything in Blender and planning to learn Unreal - totally agree!
Lightwave vs Blender. They're both fun to learn and are keepers in my book. The area where there seems to be a real difference is in the availability of current tutorials. There are far more tutorials for Blender (though not always great quality) than there are for Lightwave. Many years ago it was the other way around. Perhaps under the care of Lightwave Digital we may start to see an abundance of Lightwave tutorials out there as well. They're both fantastic applications and I think they compliment eachother very well. Having an effective path to learning them is what can make all the difference in their value. I'm currently running Lightwave 9.6 and Blender 3.3 because my iMac is too old to run anything more recent. Need a new machine before I can upgrade either one. I do wish there was a plugin to let Lightwave Modeler leverage a true physically accurate CFD solver like OpenFOAM so that you could truly test aerodynamic designs in Lightwave. Sort of an Aerodynamics take on LWCAD. Blender is getting closer to achieving that sort of thing but I really prefer Lightwave Modeler as a modeling environment.
I'm a longtime LightWave user, and although the edited examples of LW in this video are brilliant, Blender probably wins in most areas.
Mainly due to the severe lack of development of LightWave for the past 15 years. However I am still hopeful that LightWave Digital can rectify it somewhat, but we'll have to wait and see. I think the guy who did this video is very lenient on LW, which is of course very kind. All great exposure for LW nonetheless :)
This is a really old bird! 😄
i started out with Lightwave, they used it in all my favorite sci fi shows, of the time
but after a month of learning it, i realized, you needed to buy plugins, to do really cool stuff.. that was back then
Lightwave is good and also industrial standard most tracking softwares are compatible with it like boujour and pftrack can export directly to lw but let’s not forget that the flexibility Blender provides with addons is epic and sidefx still can’t beat that ❤
Lightwave needs to catch up in much ... but I can state one thing... IT IS VERY STABLE.... VERY..... oh n Amiga Rulez
I was Andrew Bishops first employee btw at premier vision started the Amiga centers of excellence... nice to see LW3D in his hands... feels like LW has come full circle and back home.
Its true about Amiga :D
As a user of LW with 25 years of experience, I will say that today Blender is better than Lightwave. Lightwave 2023 has the main advantage - that it came out and gave hope to its fans to work with it in the future. So everything is in the future for Lightwave. But so far Blender beats it in many respects. Although the organization of work in LW is still better. I wish both wonderful programs a long and happy life!
Lightwave seems to handle physics better than Blender. Renders done in Lightwave have a certain pro quality to them. I've used blender since 2016 and the fast modeling tools have to be blenders main strength as well the fast cycles rendering and the coming of eevee next. I still dig Lightwave since it feels pro and stable to work with. I hope they catch up. I wish them the best.
yeah, about those shortcuts, i learned Blender after Lightwave..it was Blender 1.8, i bought the actual manual, in a bookstore, and it came with the software on a cd
and the first thing said, in the manual...Blender was a 2 handed 3d software..one hand on the mouse, and the other on the keyboard
that's why after learning that manual, another Blender book, and the software..i kept modelling with Lightwave.. i like icons, that tell you what to do, i hate memorizing shortcuts...because after a while, you get overloaded with them, not just Blender, but your operating system, and any other graphics, video, or music software that you use
Don't forget customer support, of which blender basically has none. You're stuck with the community or hoping an update fixing your problem.
Honestly, I love Lightwave a lot mote than Blender. Having two seperate environments for modeling and animating can be a life saver. I originally learned 3D animation on a free version of 3D studio MAX and since the animation and modeling tool where one it was often hard to not accidentally animate and destroy your model. That being said, Blender is open source and very little beats free. Also there are a ton of plug ins with it that do all sorts of things. Yet what I've have been doing with my older Lightwave and Blender is placed them into a workflow, since I am now using Unreal at the end of my pipeline anyway.
I like both and use both. Poly modeling with the two of them is similar and fun in both cases. I really like LightWave's Camera and Light handling. However, Blender's Walk and Fly modes are pretty close. I'm pretty crazy about Blender's bloom effects (too bad 4.2 made it a lot more complex to do) and I also like how Blender's design logic carries neatly though all of its 'modules' (once you know one part of Blender, you have a good chance to figure out the rest). LightWave seems to have tacked on a bunch of its features over the years, requiring the end-user to arrange his or her own menus to their liking. At the end of the day, they're both really good. And hey -- you can always send models back and forth between Blender and LightWave 3D and take advantage of both their strengths. P.S. I think it was implied in the video, but -- just to be clear -- LightWave does include Light Linking too.
LightWave built its user base through independent film & video production studios who bought a Video Toaster. This meant non-3D artists were jumping into the software and their work was driving feature development. This peaked in the 90s with the work being done by Foundation and others in Hollywood. At that time, LightWave was lower cost and had a better user experience than programs like 3D Studio. Its native renderer was also among the best around. But in 2023, there's no reason to be using LightWave. Blender is the rightful spiritual successor. Being free means it's now in the hands of anyone with an internet connection. The user base is massive and the UI went from clunky in the 2.7 series to professional in 2.8 and beyond. The features of Blender are sufficient to allow any indie studio to do everything they'd need, including final compositing. I started using LightWave back in the 1980s and literally wrote the book on it back in the 2000s. I love what the software was, just like I loved what my Amiga was. But I don't use an Amiga any longer. The PC does everything and more. And I don't use LightWave any longer, because Blender is simply a better piece of software.
Well, in some cases, yes, Blender is better. But not in all.
and while the 2.8 ui solved things, the Blender Ui certainly isn't a gold standard.
@@erikals I'd be curious to hear what areas Lightwave is better than Blender in 2024. Hard surface modeling? Sculpting? Texture painting? Rigging? Arch Viz? I can't think of anything I did in Lightwave that I can't do as fast if not faster in Blender. And then there's all the things that Blender does extremely well that Lightwave still does not. Couple that with the community (many ex Lightwave users), the support by other software (which Lightwave never really had), the wide range of free add-ons, etc. I had fun with Lightwave but I can't think of any reason to pay for a seat of Lightwave today.
@@SteveWarnernot sure if i should answer it, since basically all my LightWave replies in this thread were deleted.
seems like a Biased thread, or something.
@@SteveWarner
- Toggling between Camera and Light view is simpler in LW3D.
- Light linking is easier.
- Camera and Light translation controls are also more intuitive.
- Mirroring selected groups of polygons that are off-axis.
- Vertex to polygon modeling (since LW respects point creation and selection order for any number of vertices).
- Spline cage to quad modeling.
- I'm not aware of a Blender equivalent to Spin Quads or Cut -> Maintain quads in corners.
- Keyframing a different frame while on a frame that's already keyed.
Great for when you need to see what the camera sees on the frame you're at while also needing to set an object or light's final position or rotation. E.g.) Light needs to pass precisely through a window at frame 30 to cast along the floor yet you need to set keys for other items at frame 90.
Having said that, Blender offers a ton of great stuff, including many tools as modifiers instead of having to commit to changes, excellent glow effects, equally good render results, really powerful geometry nodes, and lots of extras like the VSE, 2D animation, and a compositor that's more feature-rich than LightWave's.
@@SteveWarner As mentioned in the video, with TFD now included + plus the Bullet Dynamics, LW is probably the better option for VFX. Its native render is more physically accurate than Cycles, and also comes with Octane Prime natively, which is certainly better than Cycles. LW doesn't have an EVEE realtime render, though...so, I guess it boils down to how often one would use a Realtime engine for production work. Blender certainly has a bigger 3rd party community, but they pretty much have to cater to a community that expects things to be free or dirt cheap. That's why many 3rd party render engines avoid Blender, and when they do offer a plugin for Blender, it's typically limited compared to support for it in other 3D apps. Octane has a plugin for Blender, but IIRC, you have to install a separate Octane for Blender version.
This is where being FREE is more of a liability, because some of the best plugins in the industry won't come to Blender despite its huge userbase. There are good reasons to use both and that is what I plan to do.
Wow. What a nice surprise to hear from lightwave again. Newtek has an interesting story i think. They were recently bought out by a broadcast graphics production company but they kept the name for branding. Looks like they let lightwave live on as a separate project.
Totally sold to a brand new company founded to exclusively focus on LW. No NT/Viz tentacles.
I've spent most of my career hearing about all of Lightwave's shortcomings. Nevertheless, I've never used any 3D software as powerful, and by powerful I mean that it enabled me to quickly achieve just about anything I could think of. I love Blender too, although I have not been using it very long. Lightwave went down due to criminal neglect and mishandling, not because it was lacking in capability. In that respect, it is somewhat like Softimage. Softimage was a fantastic 3D software, but was overtaken by the almost shamefully inferior Maya for a variety of reasons that had nothing to do with the software itself. It amazes me how "industry standard" software is often so lousy, as with Maya for VFX and AutoCAD in architecture. Good marketing, I guess. I much prefer something like Blender, or Lightwave, they are configured for the individual creator. You don;t need an engineering team to get them to deliver something usable.
The amount of bugs a relative of mine encountered
while trying to learn Maya
left me with the impression
that it actually required a subscription to tech support
to clear those hurdles.
Hey Steve. It's been a long time since the days at Foundation. We did a lot of incredible stuff using LightWave back then. Blender has really improved since 2.78. It's packed with a lot of features. The interface still seems a bit cluttered to me but it's way better than it was. LightWave, as far as the Layout portion goes is just so easy to set things up like you were dressing a set. I wish Modeler had gotten more attention over the years but there are plenty of modeling apps out there and with the addition of a few 3rd party tools like LWCAD and some from 3rdPowers, Modeler is still a viable tool. I was pleasantly surprised to hear of LightWave's resurrection. I know the team has a lot of work ahead of them to bring it up to times but I'm happy to support the effort. I've used LW for well over 25 years professionally and I think it still has a few tricks left.
I think in time Lightwave can be even better than Maya and surpass Blender if the get enough money! they already are ahead in some fields!
great comparision, aspecialy that blender created with lightwave philosophy
Interesting comparison. I've used Lightwave professionally since 1998, and I still finish most of my CG work in Lightwave 2015, but it's been essentially abandoned for years. Lightwave's newest owners are proceeding oddly. Blender offers a ton of great features, but it's clunky in so many ways, and it's been slow to implement necessary things such as light-linking, which Lightwave had over twenty years ago. Blender's interface is better than it used to be, but it's still an unattractive mess (I personally dislike its extensive, hard-to-remember shortcuts and nodes for everything). Since I know Lightwave so well, I often complete animations with it, bake everything, then bring that into Blender to add fancy Blender effects and rendering. I doubt I'll upgrade to the most recent Lightwave.
I'm curious about one thing I don't think you mentioned: Lightwave has NEVER in past releases used Nvidia RTX cards to aid rendering (as Blender does), which makes its otherwise excellent rendering engine very slow as it uses CPU only. Does Lightwave 2023 rendering make use of graphics accelerator hardware?
LightWave has progressed a long way from 2015, and will progress further now new life has been breathed into it. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Blender does not use RTX cards to help CPU rendering - I don't think that would be possible. It can use the GPU instead of the CPU, something that LightWave users can now profit from with the inclusion of the Octane plugin for a single GPU. Users can later upgrade to a full version of Octane if they like what it gives them
The latest release comes with the 1 x GPU version of Octane, but apart from that, the native renderer does not use GPU, just CPU.
It now ships with Octane included, but only the free version, which limits the use to only 1 GPU. This will surely change in the future and include also full GPU rendering as well natively. Currently you can buy an Octane license, or another render engine which works with LW to render with GPUs. But this was a good step forward already with the first new release under the new company and they added a lot of new stuff and improvements only in a few months time. They are fast moving in a good direction and developing LW quite strongly now.
light wave was used to create skinny bob back in the day. really god software
Back in the days lightwave 7 was the only software can get me into 3d, it was intuitive and simple comparing to others. I couldn't get into maya and max even though by following tutorials. Lightwave didn't even have edge in modeling back then.
But what about the comparison of stability, speed of scattering tools, automation tools and collaborative project management, the number of polygons in the scene, the number of modifiers and operators, ease of writing scripts and plugins, scene management capabilities, context layers..??
Hi, what is the easiest one to use ?
LW with its 1000$ price tag can be a huge competition in the market. Hopefully they will be able to resurrect it and make it great again. Especially in this world of subscription only software, we need more options!
LW was the very first pro level 3D software I learned… 20 years ago. Right now I’m fully committed to Blender but I might have it a look out of nostalgia
LW is still pro level compared to Blender.
@@amigarulez I agree in some aspects but after almost 20 years with Blender one builds a workflow and invest thousands of hours which one does not simply put on hold (or discard) just out of nostalgia.
if blender keeps neglecting their actual physics section(not geo nodes sims), LW can sit back on their throne.
This is a simple economic question.
At $850 USD does lightwave 2023 offer a feature set that that is superior to what I can get in Blender with just a few hundred dollars of pro add-ons?.
I have Flip fluids, hard ops/boxcutter
Decal machine auto rig pro and faceit,
Fracture/Kaboom, Random flow and I have not even come close to spending $800 on addons.
Also you are completely wrong about Character animation by virtue of the fact that I Can not MODEL AND RIG/weight paint in layout with Lightwave IIRC.
Does lightwave have a general purpose retargeter Like ARP.
or any ARKIT based facial mocap animation options like we have with Faceit or the FREE landmark App that captures facial performance from video for ARKIT Faced Characters in Blender?.
I think those are British pounds. Price tag is about 1000 dollars?
Why would you be concerned with modeling in Layout when there's a Modeler? Weight painting can be done in Layout natively. Before that was possible (years ago) you would use a third party plugin.
How is fluid fire and smoke working for you in blender, while it is easy to set up, it works with all dynamic forces mostly, it is slow as hell to simulate, and the quality from either the old legacy fluid smoke and fire or mantaflow, is not good enough for really pro work, TFD fluids Is for lightwave is.
That said with fluid smoke and fire, explosion in mind, flip fluids liquids, that´s a different story.
But I am not sure if blender is capable of delivering good quality fire and smoke by simulating in blender, while I think Lightwave has proven itself with such renders.
Lightwave has a good smoke & pyro system
but is it good enough to spend $1000 USD to access it
when my FREE Houdini apprentice version exports smoke and pyro to VDB that I can render in Blender ?
Again it is the economics of the current day market not the one of 2003.
Maya,Cinema4D and Houdini based Pro studios are not even going consider LW 2024 ,at any price,as it offers nothing they do not already have.
Pro game dev studios are using Maya and indies already have FREE Blender for content creation and Character animation and FREE UE5 and Unity.
The Hobbyists from the Daz, Reallusion Iclone ecosystems all have FREE pipeline tools for Blender UE5 and Unity when they decide to level up
So no need for them to spend $1000 on LW 2024.
So who does that leave to buy licenses of this new version?
Nostalgic old timers from the early 2000’s perhaps but how many of them remain to rebuild a modern day online knowledge base and community? @@PrometheusPhamarus
@@PrometheusPhamarusI can say with certainty that at a minimum, mantaflow is not capable of providing predictable and repeatable results. When you build a low resolution fluid simulation (because higher resolution sims take so long to bake) and you think it is good, once you raise the resolution all bets are off. The physics go crazy, water mesh is flying everywhere, obstacles become semi-permeable where before they wouldn't be. It is extremely frustrating.
Lightwave is missing a load of feature but what it has is efficient and industry standard. Blender was awful for many years but has rapidly become cutting edge and has a ton o features. I can't get into blender though as I love the simplicity and speed that I can work with in Lightwave whereas Blender just seems so difficult to do something basic. I just probably don't have the time to get into it. At the end of the day I probably only use less thana quarter of the features in Lightwave - it's huge. A lot of people rave about blender's feature but probably don't need or use most of them. Lightwave will get a cutdown streamlined version in the next year or so, possibly free too so it will be interesting to see how it goes. The developers are transitioning at the moment so it's going to take a couple of versions to get a more modern version up and running. If you are a freelancer like me then Lightwave is great in your toolbox if you need to add 3D elements in your work and you have tight deadlines.
oh, not sure what you are talking about with keyboard shortcuts. If you use Lightwave then you know that literally everything can have a keyboard shortcut assigned to it and the UI is customisable in that way so if you are a blender fanatic you can assign the same keys to do the same things easily
What cutting edge and ton of features are you talking about? I look at Blender everyday and cant find any cutting edge feature.
Any one know where to get free version Lightwave 2023..?
Its funny how you mentioned Blender and Industry standard in the same sentence. That really funny. Hilarious.
Great Video, i forgot the amazing ChronoSculpt for polish finals animation and create Morphs... i need to take a look at LW 2023 that includes turbulenceFD 😬, i have never play with blender
this made me chuckle somewhat
You're not the only one.
2:28 LOL needed over 2 seconds to figure out it is NOT Blender... 😜 Totally forgot about lightwave. Tried the demo years back when I switched from XSI to Blender.
For newbies like me, I choose Blender. Because its Free!
Keep in mind that TFD couldn´t..and I don´t think that has changed, render the fire and smoke with it´s own volumetric engine together with Lightwaves newer volumetric enginge, so fire and smoke trails on top of clouds that are made with the volume item in Lighwave can´t be done in a single pass, you have to render each element seperatly and activate the old volume engine, then the new one..Or, you go for octane rendering, or You have to export the fluids to vdb and import back.
The native VDB rendering can however not perform any multiple volume bounce light scatter for clouds, or for fire, so either have to use octance, or render with the older engine and then use the build in multiple scatter in TFD, but that multiple scatter was..and probably is Extremely slow to the point of useless.
So while the TFD addon is nice, I think it has some stuff to overcome, partly how to render with a new volumetric engine, that currently do not have multiple scattering, or to render with octane.
TFD will also need to have some unification with the other dynamic wind forces, it can only use it´s own forces, not the same as bullet forces, and not the same as the particle wind forces, none of these dynamic forces work together ..so that is a problem.
TFD needs to adress opengl Fire and smoke Visualisations, it only shows either fire, or smoke at once..so that´s not good enough, blender can show both at the same time.
That said, TFD is so much faster to simulate the fire, since it is GPU and CPU based, and it provides a better solver quality for the voxels.
I got my start in 3D modeling with Lightwave 3D circa 1998
I used Lightwave professionally for 17 years, switched to Blender four years ago, and never looked back. Yes, Blender has "issues" with exporting rigs and animations to Unreal, but overall, you can't put Blender and Lightwave in the same sentence today! Blender is WAY BETTER for modeling, great for sculpting, fantastic node based procedural textures, painting... Try to do retopology in LW, good luck with that one!
Retopo is rather an odd thing to mention, simply because there are much better tools than either Lightwave or Blender for that purpose
@@rodneyschmidt3652 not at all. Of course there are better tools for retopo than blender, but there are great addons for retopo in Blender, and they do a great job. So, if there is a "better" tool for every stage, should I switch from tool to tool for every stage? Should I switch to another software just to do UVs? I would rather shoot myself. :)
@@goranmitrovic77The tools you use are your choice; but switching from tool to tool in order to use the best tool for a task is often what professionals often do. Using Substance for materials and UV, using Houdini for simulations, etc. I wasn't denigrating Blender, just pointing out that of the comparisons that could be made, retopo is a strange one.
@@rodneyschmidt3652 ofcourse, but switching tool for UVing or retopo is nonsense.
@@goranmitrovic77 Then I guess the rest of the industry has some explaining to do.
is Octane included in Lightwave 2023 license or purchased separately?
Octane plugin is included in Lightwave 2023. You are able to get Octane Prime license for Lightwave 2023 which is a free license. Octane license is separate.
like what serious limitations does it have as opposed to the full license of octane?
I think the only limitation is you can only use 1 GPU on the free version of Octane.@@orphydiancg7759
@@orphydiancg7759 The Octane Prime license only allows one GPU. The Lightwave group have taken over the maintenance of the Octane plugin, so it will be brought up to date to use the latest Octane version (it currently supports an older version), but you'll still need to buy an Octane license if you want to use more than one GPU or a render farm.
Need to integrate model/layout workspaces if desired.
Lightwave is more fun and simple to use.
Always loved Lightwave, but it's kinda difficult to justify spending $1000+ with Blender3D as mature as it is and open source.
for a company, even indie, $1000+ is nothing, but for a hobbyists, yes, it is quite a bit.
upgrades are around $300. (unless version-skip)
09:27 FYI this is BLACKMAGIC FUSION software not a part of LIGHTWAVE 3D 😅
This is the first time I heard about lightwave
I just started looking at using Blender last week after years of using LW. I didn't even know there was an update. Still not 100% convinced unfortunately :(
If you need to pay for something sim related.. , do it for Houdini...
I have the exact opposite opinion. Lightwave modeling tools are on another level compared to Blender.
the hotkeys are customizable in XSI and the UI is customizable in Blender, so I don't think these are real problems.
blender is the nightmare of all software 3d houses
The moment I saw Lightwave's UI, the video ended for me. Blender is king.
I tried blender, did not like it, went back to lightwave because i know it inside out. Others may loke other software, and that's fine, but for me, I'm way faster in lightwave and I'm so happy they are updating it. I will happily invest my 1000 down.
Just make Lightwave open source and free like Blender. It will still make money but it will instantly become industry standard!
afaik they can't because of some of the code written.
just like Blender has some problems because of some of the source code licensing rules, like Tindal said.
Why not subscription? Who wants to buy and keep a software in this state?
Because subscriptions are a trap. However I do thing they are going to do seat rentals and rent to own.
compare lightwave to houdini plz :]
my main issues I came from maya having a object mode and not having to work in layers. I cant stand the layer system having to model like this is a hard pass
It's becoming common that Blender is unfairly compared to paid software. Imagine open source software that is so good that it has absolutely no peer so it has to compete with paid software.
What? Lightwave 2023 ?
Has new version been released ?
yes, some upgrades.
Yes. It has procedural geometry nodes in Layout, Turbulence FD smoke and fire simulation, instance painting, new Text tool, new node editor functionality, dozens of new tools, and the Unreal Bridge is getting an update to work with the current Unreal soon.
Lightwave. My first girlfriend.
same, i m married to maya now and she is very expensive.
you can cheat on her@@iDidntAskToBeBorn765
ugh Light wave needs a rebirth, its still thinks it the 1990's
no contest - I used Lightwave for 20 ish years before having to swap to Blender, and IMO Blender shits all over LW any time any day.
Realy video
Blender is free what more can you ask...there is no versus in this
LIghtwave 2019 doesn't work on windows 10 on RTX 30X0 cards... from what i understand 2020 doesn't work either... if they don't work i don't see myself spending $700 on 2023 when i've already learned Blender and it works amazingly in windows 10 on an RTX 3060 Ti.. i've sent customer support and not a word from Lightwave Digital.. SAD!!!!
I used the LW 2020 demo on a Windows 10 system with a RTX 3070. It worked okay, but I didn't update because it broke compatibility with my old Lightwave textures, and I dislike nodes (one of my problems with Blender). I prefer layers, which is why I use After Effects instead of Fusion. A comfortable interface is often more important than modern features
@@FranklyPeetoons You can still use standard layers as a matierial. Also, no problems with 2018+ and 208xx and up cards. I have a 4060TI in my system now and it works absolutely flawlessly.
@@battlestarvfx But does it actually accelerate native Lightwave renders compared to the CPU? That's why I occasionally render in Blender
@@FranklyPeetoonsI have 2018 installed and it renders with the CPU not the GPU so all that power and still renders slowly
Lightwave digital aren't going to fix 2019. It's not their product. It's Newtek. 2023 works fine. Apple Silicon releasing very soon too
its like using a axe to cut down a tree.
Lightwave is still better than blender, the modeler is impressive. But yeah blender has been in steady development for so long.
Blender is free and its possible to create all kind of art inside it. I came from 3ds max and it was very limited also it cost money. I love blender because I can focus on creating things without having to think about earning money to pay for the license
LOL, I used Maya.
LW easier and better to do Character Animation than Blender????LOL
@ Inspiration Tuts please next time you ask me if you may distribute my animations on your channel. these are copyrighted works and may only be copied, modified and/or shown with my permission. By the way. Anyone who compares 3D programs with each other can't be that clever. The user is decisive, not which hammer he uses.
describing differences, as "comparing" is essential to let anyone make a decision on to what will work best for each user when they choose what to use, that is the way to do it and it´s more clever than not clever.
Both software are great for different purposes, both have serious issues as well, to be aware of what those are, that is clever.
describing differences, as "comparing" is essential to let anyone make a decision on to what will work best for each user when they choose what to use, that is the way to do it and it´s more clever than not clever.
Both software are great for different purposes, both have serious issues as well, to be aware of what those are, that is clever.
@@PrometheusPhamarus It makes no sense to compare something if the most important tool is ignored and that is the user. Yes, both software packages have advantages and disadvantages in terms of their functions, but that is the least of the problems. The bigger problem is often in front of the screen.
In this respect, comparing software by only looking at the range of functions is pointless. What you can do with both software packages depends much more on the user's understanding than on the software itself. Put a paintbrush in the hand of a monkey and a paintbrush in the hand of van Gough and then learn what they both do with the tool. Then you realize that it's not the brush that paints the picture. :)
@@LightwaveGuru how should someone know which software is good/best for him. I think this channel is best because of these videos in which he tell the difference or comparisons let say between different softwares instead of spending months in free trials to try the software I think watching these videos and then move into the softwares can take a few days or weeks
@CGSTUDENT15
As I said. Comparing the software without those who use it is not practice-oriented. In practice, a 3D artist uses every tool he needs to do a job. I, for example, use a whole bunch of software from the Nurbs and Polygon cosmos. But that doesn't say anything about how well I've mastered this software. As I said. It's not the software that does the job. The job is done by the artist. We don't compare ourselves via the software we use, but via our demo reels / renderings.
Lightwave is just about 20 years behind Blender. And in five years, more like 25 years behind.
You sure? LW, being closed source - much easier to include industry standard libraries compared to Blender.
@@RealFableFox Lightwave had its day. But it never modernized so theoretical libraries able to be included in LW is just users dreaming of what LW could be instead of what it is. Too far behind.
爷青回！
Hard pass - LW got stuck in the past, I wouldn't recommend it to anyone until the whole software is redone from the ground up. LW never got around that horrible layout - modeler split, which no other software had even back then. LW modeler was unbeatable for a while, it had crazy amount of all kinds of mesh editing and deformation tools.
TBH this video only makes sense as a clickbait, there is no comparison between these software - LW is a relict of a past with its past good and bad things, with some new features bolted on top, while Blender with all its problems is anyway a software that isn't stuck in the past and has seen considerable changes in the last 10 years.
The Modeler - Layout split is one of the best things in LW. We don't need LW to be just another software with unified 1 program environment, which every single other software is. LW brings a true choice in the industry in this matter and it's much better that way. You don't do everything in one place under the same roof typically in this world anyway in a lot of industries. On the contrary, it's usually better to separate processes and work in separate places for many reasons.
@@322ss Non-sense, LW is still amazing software and very capable and now with new development it is going forward very fast and is getting back industry share very quickly in the future without any doubt. Only in a few months under a new team it has seen a big leap forward already. Just watch and see.
@@-Mohog your opinion - and you don't have to preach to me, I started 3D with LW (well, some other software before that), used it more than a decade, LW was my go to software, but I'm not going to touch it ever again, unless they do real meaningful changes.
@@322ss You can do whatever you want of course, it's your choice. However LW is still great and will be among the top software again in every way without a doubt and is getting big meaningful developments and already has in its very first version and upgrade under the new company and team in just a few months. And sure my opinion is my opinion, but it's based on reality and facts and a lot of people's opinions align with mine out there. Anyway, everyone will choose what they regard the best for themselves of course. But isn't it regardless of each person's choice a good thing, that there is again this software being actively and strongly developed, which brings more choice in this industry? The more choice there is, the better.
As a Blender user, I can't accept a software which was dead since the 1990's came back and is better than Blender in animation. This is just an opinion and opinions vary from person to person
Well don't take the video too seriously, he didn't make much of any kind of comparison in any meaningful level. Lightwave rigging for example was always horrible, those skelegons they later added did pretty much nothing to fix things, so if you think Blender's armatures are crap, try LW. And managing animations and keyframes was pain.
1990 is an exaggeration. It's been more like 10 years since Lightwave has been used less and less in films and series. Battlestar Galactica ran from 2003 to 2009. Battlestar Galactica: Blood & Chrome is from 2012. Iron Sky is from 2012.
Since 1990's? That's when it all started and LW was an industry standrard since then for a long time. It has been less used only a relatively short time and now under a new company and an amazing team it will be back among the top software again.
@thebestone939 It's still used in the movies a bit :) Top Gun: Maverick used it, probably mostly for Pre-Viz, but those previz guys are incredible animators.
Was also used in Green Book, Wind River, Onimusha, the animated series on Netflix, and more recent movies too that I can't remember.
I don't disagree that character animation in LW is poor, but Chris Jones (who has since moved to Blender) did some of the best character stuff I've seen in any application, let alone lowly LightWave :D
LW was sold 3 years ago from Newtek (first owner and creator ) to Virzt to a new team in may-june 2023.
LightWave sucks it keeps on getting worse and worse with each update. So that is why I switched to Blender.
You kind of skipped over the fact that Lightwave has a price tag and Blender is free! 😏
when first showing the UI, I tought it was modo, modo was a piece of trash. I wasted almost 1000 USD on it. I went to Blender after modo, so happy I did. Lightwave was or maybe is a great software, but why in the earth should I pay for something you can get for free ? just saying
I was also using Modo before and learned many 3D stuff in it indeed, later I switched to Blender. I think Modo wasn't a piece of trash tbh. Why do you think it is crap just curious?
Here's my own conclusion. BLENDER IS FREE lmao
Lightwave is $10 USD a month > with an interface from 2005
XSI had a user interface from 2001, was still the best 3D application. Until AutoDesk ate it.
To expensive and only windows...
A Mac version is on the way. The new team had some problems out of their control which meant they couldn't make the release deadline for Mac, but it is a top priority for them and will be coming soon.
Mac version is out now.
i agree - they should cut the price.
blender is free
and Great ☺️no ring to rule them all tho'
I hated Lightwave, litterally made a whole studio switch to maya that was using it because of how clunky the modeling is. Also you can merge multiple verts with blender just use merge by distance. Blender sculpting also has currective shape keying for sculpting.
"Also you can merge multiple verts with blender just use merge by distance"
I haven't used lightwave since 7.X but I definitely remember you could do that too.
I'm curious if that is possible or not without plugins
@@orphydiancg7759 in blender just bring up the merge options M and hit by distance.
merge multiple verts? That function has been in LightWave forever.
but surely, Modeler needs an upgrade, agree.
LightWave is still the best Organic SubD Modeler around tho'
@@orphydiancg7759 it has been around 4ever... no plugins needed.
I dont know how you can compare any app to open source blender? And it's all in one app you dont need to use another.
I've used a lot of 3d apps, and they all have their strengths and weaknesses. There are reasons a lot of users have kept using it, including myself. Blender does have a lot of great features, but I've found it clunky to use. That might change with 4 though :)