Hi,
I'm new to this forum, but not new to 3D. About seven years ago I had to stop doing 3D (Time constraints), but I always missed it and I want to do it again.
The tools changed enormously in the last years and I'd like to start using Vue.

Am I correct that Vue has no modeller and I'll need a separate tool for that?
Which one do you use?

I was looking at Hexagon 2.x. This one looks powerfull and affordable.

Thanks for your help!

Cu, Claus

Welcome to Renderosity Vue forum
I prefer Maxon Cinema for my modeling in Vue. But you can find here two video tutorials how to model in hexagon; and use the object in Vue.

http://www.geekatplay.com/tutorials/area51/hex/
http://www.geekatplay.com/tutorials/epiclandscapes/treeman/

Mazak

I prefer Modo 301 because it's intuitive and powerful, but I also use Lightwave 9 and Zbrush 3 semi-frequently for other reasons. I never sculpted much in real life, and Zbrush is too much like a lump of clay on the table for my tastes. However, with the controlled precision of subpatch modeling in Modo, I’ve gotten good results, and Zbrush rules for surface textures and morphs. Lightwave is for rigging and animating (not that I've done much animating at this point.)

Hello Claus! I am a Maya modeller, myself, but I started with and used Truespace for years. Truespace 6.6 is quite good (I still use it for much production work) and it costs $395.00 USD. Truespace 6.6 has a full set of polygon tools, a full set of NURBS tools, a somewhat primative subdivision surfaces toolset, and a reasonable particles set of functions, among other things - so it is quite well-rounded for the money. Plus a lot of other stuff, of course - typical things like common UV Mapping functions, arrays, and a very decent set of utilities. I found that there was a very natural progression from Truespace up to Maya, should you find that your ambitions grow in the future. (And, in fact, it was Truespace work in the end, that paid for Maya Unlimited.) Lightwave is also excellent. It costs more than Truespace, of course. While it is easier to use and has tons of excellent features - including great subdivision surface tools, it lacks NURBS features, as do most of the mid-range modelling tools. If Lightwave had been then what it is today, I would rather have started with it. So, if you are not quite sure of the kind of model-building toolsets you will find most useful to whatever work you decide to do, Truespace is a good option because of the array of tools it contains. One thing, if you think you may really be a model-builder, you should plan on acquiring something that costs between $400 and $1000. Otherwise, you may short yourself, and end up spending money over and over again.

I'll second Mazak, Cinema4D rules! I have Hex2, but I find it painful to model anything with it, but many love it and it creates very nice and complex models. You can also get Silo2, which is very cheap and powerful, but it doesn't do nurbs, only polygon and subdivisions. Or try the free Wings3d, same kind of modeller than Silo, but the poly count can be a big stability issue.

I like Rhino for modelling most objects, and if i can get used ot the TERRIBLE interface of Zbrush, I'll use that for organics ;)

 Hi,
thanks for all your responses.
Are skeletons and IK stuff exported too if you save in the modeller and transfer the data to Vue?
In the "good old days" export/import was a pain.
Cu, Claus

You can only import the mesh, no animations, if not from Poser or Max ( the latter only possible with Vue Infinite)

Cinema 4D is fantastic - base package is around $900 if I remember right - excellent modeller, rigging and animation, etc. It now (v.10 and above) comes bundled with BodyPaint so you have an industry standard UV mapping and texturing tool to boot.

XSI Foundation is $500 with again fantastic modelling tools, as well as a particle system, UVMapping, rigging and animation, etc. Apparently (and I haven't tried this yet) you can actually SWAP bones from model to model - you have the same base sizes and proportions but not rigged yet, dupe the first model and swap out the bones!

Anyway, for custom surfacing, I use Mudbox - like ZBrush it's incredible for surface detailing, but expect a high poly-count when you're done.

The nice part about Vue is that it can chomp away at billions of polys - so when you make a complex model it has no problem moving it around into position and setting up a scene around it AND a few other high poly models.

Hope this helps-
-Lew ;-)

Quote - You can only import the mesh, no animations, if not from Poser or Max ( the latter only possible with Vue Infinite)

So, I'd have to animate the mesh in Vue. But AFAIK Vue can only move meshes around and scale them. Vue can't animate them, define skeletons or morph them. Am I correct?

Cu,
Claus

I model in Hexagon, texture in Carrara, and render in Vue.  Also get GeoControl for importing perfect landscapes into Vue.  See http://www.cajomi.de/GeoControl/geocontrol.htm

I use Hexagon for basic model creation and morph creation.  If you're going to get Hexagon, get version 2.1 not 2.2.  Version 2.2 is still broken because it screws up the vertex order on export.  2.1 works just fine.  If you're looking for a clay sculpting type modeling tool, Zbrush, Silo and MudBox all work well.  I prefer MudBox because it's really simple to use and you can learn it in under an hour.

i use Modo 201 (i havn't updated it to 301) and i'm still learning it, also Hexagon2,  for architectural type models i generally use SketchUp.

Hexagon too for my part, but i'm drooling to C4D ^^

I'll just add my 25c in that Geocontrol is awesome. I bought version 1, have been playing with the beta of 2, and the only reason I haven't bought 2 is that I can't yet since it's not released. I still have some difficulty getting just what I want because the tool is so powerful, but I'm improving. The roads tool and the water tool are unbelievable. (The water tool is really slow, because it simulates water flow.)

For mesh modelers, I suggest trying the demos of several and going with what you feel comfortable with. They all have different approaches, some appeal to some people and others appeal to, well, others.

The instructional videos for modo are very well done. You get a free one - modeling a sea horse - when you buy the product (at least at the time I bought it you did) and the Andy Brown videos are in my opinion well worth the price. He makes it look so simple!

My advice:  If you want to get your feet wet modeling, start with a cheap program.  Learn the process, learn the terminology, learn different tools.  If you find that you like modeling, and when you become proficient then upgrade to a more powerful program as your skills cause the first program obsolete. 

Personally I love Hexagon 2.2.  But this is just my opinion based on my experiences.  It has its limitations but it is very easy and intuitive once you get an understanding of modeling.  I also have C4d but it is not as easy as Hex. 

This is just my 2cents so I hope I have helped you some.

GM

Wings3D is Free and a good modeling program. Good one to begin with to learn the process.

Nevercenter Silo is not expensive, and they have a demo version.

Daz will be releasing a Hexagon 2.3 update in a month.  It is perfect for making OBJ models for Vue.  Their textures and bump maps can be painted on in Hexagon (after UVmapping) and exported for Vue.

Shonner,
wish Hexagon had bene out years ago, I'm just too used to Rhino now to change, sigh.

Hexagon, IF they fix the bugs folk are having real hassles with, looks like it should be great.
Hope they bring out V3 some time :)

Rhino is awesome for NURBS.  I use Amapi Pro for such things, but still plan to get Rhino.

Thanks for all your input. As I already did a lot of 3D modelling in the late 90's I know many of the technologies used to do 3D. This makes it harder to choose a tool, as I don't need to learn the basics.
I'm testing Cinema4D at the moment. It has an amazing range of functionality.
And Vue is just great. I'd like to do 3D animation in a Vue landscape, like driving a car through the area or flying with an airplane over it.
Can this be done without composing picture by picture from the two sources?
cu,
Claus

Vue 6.5 xStream integrates Cinema4D with Vue's landscaping.

Quote - Vue 6.5 xStream integrates Cinema4D with Vue's landscaping.

Do I have to get the xStrem version to get this feature? I had hoped to get away with the "Pro Studio" ;-)

you need xstream, as it is a plugin version of infinite and integrates environments from vue into c4d (or other supported apps. It has all of the functionality of infinite, and can operate in standalone mode.

Well, maybe what you COULD do is some compositing... This might be easier than you think if we're talking about a flyover.

Vue6 Infinite has a Sync plugin where you can bring in camera data from other apps (C4D is one of the - also Max, Maya, etc.) So in C4D you can fully animate your ship flying through the air, maybe changing configurations during flight - example: like an F-14 Tomcat folding its wings back to go supersonic, then bursting forward even faster and leaving the camera behind.

In C4D you can set up your camera data and path, the animation of you model, and render everything out with an Alpha Channel.

Bring the camera data into Vue and create the environment it is flying in/through/over and animate THAT using the C4D camera. Bring it into something like After Effects and slap the 2 together, and you can also add other atmo FX, particles, birds you fly past, etc.

This would also go faster as each app would render its respective setups faster, rather than doing it ALL at once with FX, etc. which would chew up your computer's processor.

Did that make sense? I hope so - good luck and have fun!
-Lew ;-)

If you want a modeler something like Hexagon but far superior, look at Silo 3D.
By far the best box/poly modeler IMO.

Silo forum:
http://www.silo3d.com/forum/

Silo 3D home ("NeverCenter"):
http://www.nevercenter.com/

Silo is also very inexpensive. 

Quote - Well, maybe what you COULD do is some compositing... This might be easier than you think if we're talking about a flyover.

Vue6 Infinite has a Sync plugin where you can bring in camera data from other apps (C4D is one of the - also Max, Maya, etc.) So in C4D you can fully animate your ship flying through the air, maybe changing configurations during flight - example: like an F-14 Tomcat folding its wings back to go supersonic, then bursting forward even faster and leaving the camera behind.

In C4D you can set up your camera data and path, the animation of you model, and render everything out with an Alpha Channel.

Bring the camera data into Vue and create the environment it is flying in/through/over and animate THAT using the C4D camera. Bring it into something like After Effects and slap the 2 together, and you can also add other atmo FX, particles, birds you fly past, etc.

This would also go faster as each app would render its respective setups faster, rather than doing it ALL at once with FX, etc. which would chew up your computer's processor.

Did that make sense? I hope so - good luck and have fun!
-Lew ;-)

Thanks a lot, that made a lot of sense. As long as you don't have shadows from C4D objects on Vue scenery composing is a good and fast way to do it.
Combining objects from the two sources makes me wonder about render speed. How do the render times compare of a Vue scene rendered in Vue and the same scene rendered in C4D?

Well here's the trick - if I do anything that's going to be indoors the entire time, I do it in C4D. If I go outdoors and there'll be trees and bushes, etc., then I bring the C4D (or XSI - and now they're usually modified in Mudbox) models into Vue.

C4D (and XSI - which is basically Mental Ray, so you could say the same for Max and Maya) has a fairly fast renderer - the same basic objects setup in Vue (let's just say a "Living Rom" setup) would take 2-5 times longer in Vue (I think depending on the complexity of the lighting.

However, C4D doesn't handle the sheer mass poly-counts with thousands of alpha masks (like the trees) nearly as well as Vue. Something with hundreds or even a couple thousand trees will crash C4D (and most others) in a heartbeat. It's also more difficult to handle natural world observed atmo in C4D - hence the coupling with Vue.

BUT - like mentioned above, if it's a combo like the flyover... There's no problem rendering them on completely different machines with different apps and putting them together as long as they both have the same direction of sunlight. I did one called Outnumbered that way - the missile that is close up was rendered in C4D and the rest in Vue - which was then brought into AE and Photoshop for the fire, trails and glows. After I was finished I realized I should have done ALL the ships and missiles in C4D and the landscape in Vue and composite them together.

-Lew ;-)

Thanks a lot, Lew.
Very valuable insights. I'll continue playing around with Vue PLE and C4D for a couple of days before I'll make up my mind.
Regards,
Claus

Long thread here and I have not reviewed the whole thing, so maybe this is not right for you.
But, when you need a huge complex landscape from the air, and your altitude will not change significantly during your animation, you can dump a still screenshot from Microsoft Flight Simulator X and composite over that, If you're a flight simmer (or have a friend who is).
 
FS-X can also make animations that might be usable.
 
Many users of FS-X buy 3rd party aerial photography based terrains that are very realistic (above 2-3 thousand feet altitude). The best are from "MegaScenery":
 http://www.megascenery.com/

FS-X also has good clouds and the ability to control clouds, sun position, etc.

Heck someone who's good with FS-X could probably start a business creating backdrops for com positing!

Holy crap - that's cool!
I can DEFINITELY see some uses for that in my stuff - thanks for the link!
-Lew ;-)

Here is a Vue 6i scene I did using MSFS-X, with an older MegaScenery still screen dump and using that still as a backdrop inside Vue (rather than compositing). The clouds were done in Vue. I ended up rendering layers anyway, so I might just as well have done a composite.

http://www.renderosity.com/mod/gallery/index.php?image_id=1450902

The MSFS-X scene was done by flying over an area that looked like what I wanted, near Bakersfield California, and setting the instrument panel (in 2D panel display mode) to be transparent ("W" on keyboard). Did the background motion blur in Photoshop.

I mess around with Silo; and really like the look of mudbox - for me organic approaches rule as I understand them. Z Brush confuses the hell out of me however.

If you want to mod Poser models rather than make buildings these apps are useful and so of course is blacksmith 3D.

Yes, that's exactly what I envisioned using it for - cool image!
-Lew ;-)

If inexpensive is the top priority -- then go with hexagon (good + cheap).  If modeling is the top priority -- then go with Modo 301 (excellent - one of the best modelers available - if not the best).

C4D is excellent, too.  So's Lightwave.  At root, modeling is very much an individual thing.  The advice which others have offered in this thread to start out by 'going cheap' and then building up from there is a good idea.  You don't want to waste $900-to-$3000 on a modeling program that you later decide that you don't like.

Research and trying demos can help.