Seen this? Modo's Mesh Fusion

Stinkie

The Foundry/Luxology is working on something cool with the Groboto guys.

pilou

Sure it's easy direct modeling!

arail1

Could be wrong but I think it will be released as a separate plugin first, then folded into 801. I hope it doesn't force the price of a modo upgrade higher although I imagine it will. Apparently the developer has serious medical issues so when it will be available is an open question.

Stinkie

@arail1 said:

I hope it doesn't force the price of a modo upgrade higher although I imagine it will.

I don't think you're wrong there. I'm sure, though, many won't mind -as this tech is bound to be a great timesaver. Well, for some anyway.

Myself, I won't get a new Modo license until Modo's snapping stops being crap. Come to think of it, Modo's renderer could do with a kick in the bum as well.

arail1

@unknownuser said:

Myself, I won't get a new Modo license until Modo's snapping stops being crap. Come to think of it, Modo's renderer could do with a kick in the bum as well.

The nature of the work that I do now requires that my drawings sit between the designers on one side and the fabricators on the other. Consequently I had to reconsider my attachment to modo in favor of a program that could handle more complex annotations, and more accurate geometry and, simultaneously, generate renderings. So I ended up in the Rhino camp and am quite happy with what that program can do. I no longer model in one program, export as OBJ, clean up and texture and render in another, and so on.

But I do look back longingly at the ease with which I could create complex textures and UV maps in modo. The procedural textures and mapping and gradient controls were a joy to work with and I often find that when I'm about to move control points in Rhino I'm seeing a strategy in my mind's eye that assumes modo's Falloffs which Rhino lacks.

But man, that snapping .... why can't they listen to the angry mob and do something about that?

Stinkie

No idea. I don't understand that either. Maybe the code simply doesn't allow for the sort of changes we'd like to see? I'm sure there's more at play than plain stubborness.