Paul, you should really have a look at redshift for interiors, its already a great integration into soft, and the lighting model works brilliantly for occluded interiors where arnold struggles, as you can mix brute force with point cloud methods to get the best of both. And its very fast, as long as you have a half decent graphics card.
On 13 March 2014 00:00, Bk <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm certainly wouldn't say Im transitioning to Modo, but I totally believe > in their dedication and vision and Brad has to be one of if not THE most > communicative leaders and that counts for a lot in my book. They listen and > react properly and are forward thinking. > Modo currently lacks hugely compared to Softimage for the work I do, but I > was using it as a renderer before moving to Arnold. I enjoyed Modo > rendering, to be honest, but nothing could compete with Arnold directly in > Xsi. > I do feel like the time is coming when modo is going to get more > interesting to animators and riggers, but for me I think it's a way off. I > need ice too much. > Anyway. I'm upgrading my modo licence , if mainly so I can get mesh > fusion, but also because who knows? If they are going interesting places in > the future, I don't want to be completely rusty. > Oh and the renderer is better at interiors than Arnold and a lot cheaper > to run so I may reintroduce it for the odd job. > > > On 12 Mar 2014, at 23:18, Perryharovas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Seriously evaluating modo as all this evolves. > > Please add me: > > [email protected] > > Thank you! > > > > On Mar 12, 2014, at 5:55 PM, Mario Reitbauer <[email protected]> > wrote: > > add me in, gonna do the transition to modo and houdini. > > [email protected] > > > 2014-03-11 17:00 GMT+01:00 Ahmed Barakat <[email protected]> > : > >> I would sure like to take a look at it [email protected] >> >> >> On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 3:21 PM, Tim Crowson < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Yes the lack of non-rigging-related operator stack (not just history) >>> has been an issue for some people who really do like to model more >>> procedurally. In rigging, you'll find that deformers are stacked using >>> Order of Operations, similarly to the operator stack in Softimage, on a >>> per-deformer basis. But that's not the same thing as a construction >>> history, or procedural modeling, which every agrees would be awesome to >>> have. >>> -Tim >>> >>> >>> On 3/10/2014 3:05 AM, Szabolcs Matefy wrote: >>> >>> I am evaluating modo now as an alternative, and it looks really >>> promising, however, I miss the history. But since I worked with LW before >>> SI for four years, it's really fun to feel a somehow familiar feeling :D >>> >>> >>> >>> *From:* [email protected] [ >>> mailto:[email protected]<[email protected]>] >>> *On Behalf Of *David Rivera >>> *Sent:* Saturday, March 08, 2014 9:23 PM >>> *To:* [email protected] >>> *Subject:* Anyone in the SI list transitioning to MODO? -Please add >>> your mail here >>> >>> >>> >>> Hi, I was really touched by some of the in-depth opinions about leaving >>> SI. TD´s perspective, and other >>> >>> users who have dedicated their lives (literally) to build a rock-solid >>> pipeline for studios all around the world >>> >>> using softimage, have really made me think a lot into consideration. >>> >>> >>> >>> So, to cut a long story short, I´d like to know if there´s a thread in >>> the list that´s already being aligned into >>> >>> the Softimage/MODO transition? If not, I´d like to start it off with >>> this post. >>> >>> >>> >>> I´m going into MODO and here´s my email: >>> >>> >>> >>> [email protected] >>> >>> >>> >>> Thanks. >>> >>> >>> >>> *David Rivera* >>> *3D Compositor/Animator* >>> LinkedIN <http://ec.linkedin.com/in/3dcinetv> >>> Behance <https://www.behance.net/3dcinetv> >>> VFX Reel <https://vimeo.com/70551635> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> >> > -- www.matinai.com
