Yes, you can add as many images as you want and "blend" them as you need, but you don't have Photoshop style layers to work on ONE image by itself. This is something that even the old DeepPaint 3D had ... a functionality similar to Photoshop's layering system.

So, in modo I can bring in multiple images, but in Photoshop I can work on multiple layers in the same image. This is missing in modo and many of us have been asking for it.

EDIT: Let me check into this. I may not be correct as I am usually only painting a single image in modo. In some areas of modo I know enough to help others. In other areas I am still a newbie .

Edit (again): See answer next post.



I am as well, but I don't tend to push modo as hard as others. Most of my work is for real-time 3D, so there are a lot of modo's tools that I don't use.

Hi Frank,

Here is a thread from the Luxology forum that deals with layered painting in modo 302:

http://forums.luxology.com/discussion/topic.aspx?id=25335&show=layered%20painting

Arnie Cachelin is one of the programmers for modo. Here is his answer:



Gregory Duquesne is another employee of Luxology. Here is his workaround:



So, for once, it looks like I was right (and, yes, this is a rare thing). Currently there is no layering system, like in Photoshop, where you can paint on one image and have multiple layers. However, you can simulate this (to some degree) by having several images in your shader tree. But I think you can see where that could quickly become a problem. In Photoshop it is not unusual to have dozens (even 10's and many more) layers used for a single image. How would modo run with dozens (or 10, 20 or 30) images open and being worked on? A Photoshop-like layering system in modo would be great.

I see what you mean. But I think it is not a big problem for me for several reasons:

I can blend several images and if I have too much of them I can bake them with just a click of the mouse into one image in Modo.

And actually I will prepare many images in GIMP before I import them into Modo. I think I will rather paint alpha brushes for sculpting and painting in Gimp before I apply them in Modo.

By the way, Dan: You said pressing another button for dropping a tool is a bit annoying. But I already know this behaviour from Lightwave and it is not really a problem. If you switch to another tool then it automatically drops the last one. So you dont have to press this extra button in most cases.

HI Frank. Like I said, I like the modo work flow, but some people complain about it. The entire concept of picking up and dropping a tool is alien to them in a 3D program ... unless they come from a Lightwave background. And, as you can guess, anything that is a bit different from the norm people complain about. Look at how many people complain about ZBrush's work flow while others praise it.

I mention the pick up/drop tool concept because, believe it or not, for some people it is a show stopper and will cause them to get a different modeling application.

modo is a great solution for modeling and texturing. The rendering is faster than mentalray and you can achieve some really good effect without ant effort. Of course as everyone already said it's not a complete package like maya or lightwave but if you compare to zbrush, I would go to modo if I'm doing game modeling. I own both but I modo is more usefull than zbrush in most of my task. You don't need to switch to photoshop to create your texture, your normal map or the displacement. You can bake directly onto the texture, create different layers et more.

just check the alley tutorial to see what modo is capable of

Again, I am a modo fan. I love the app. However, I want to be fair as well. You are correct: you don't necessarily need to switch to Photoshop to create your texture. However, you cannot replace Photoshop with modo. I find that I must go to Photoshop from time to time no matter how good modo's paint tools are. This is simply because the tools in Photoshop are so much more advanced than modo's painting tools. Most of the people I know that use modo do a decent amount of painting for their models in Photoshop. They paint in modo, too, but find that modo lacks in some areas.

Yes. I agree. A real 2d painting program still provides some more features, all these filters, tools for off-setting, scaling, copying, whatever.
I will not replace GIMP. But a 3d painting tool has a lot of advantages as well: you can paint over uv-seams/borders. You have real-time feedback and you can apply textures very accurate while some distortion could happen if you use a 2d picture and a slightly distorted uv-map.

So a combination of both is just perfect. In the past I painted most parts of textures in GIMP and I used Bodypaint 3d only for minor tasks like repairing the uv-borders. But I am sure I will paint more in Modo because it is so easy there.
The same counts for sculpting. I do not like the ZBrush interface but I can arrange with it. But sculpting in Modo is more easy, more intuitive. ZBrush always appeared a bit like magic to me, like a black box. I understand how to handle but don't know how it works. In Modo it is fairly simple. I have the impression to understand it all.
But I am not afraid to use ZBrush as well if I need even more details.

But that is only me. Maybe some other people see it the other way around.

franck I Do understand how you feel about zbrush I finally understood how its work even if I would be able to explain what I exactly learn.
But the first advantage of modo over zbrush it's the 3D view and the fact you can paint an entire level. In Zbrush you need to use subtool and for something other than character is not really handy.

this an example of what I create just using modo ( my first experimentation )

http://img255.imageshack.us/my.php?image=armance9nj6.jpg

http://img221.imageshack.us/my.php?image=arm1nv7.jpg

http://img225.imageshack.us/my.php?image=arm2yf8.jpg

http://img137.imageshack.us/img137/5083/armance4bz9.th.jpg

I didn't use photoshop for theses but I have to admit that machinery frank and dan silverman were true. I was doing an Hi detailed character I would need photoshop. But for most of the task I belive if you are good enogh in modo you can do almost everything in the package.

I haven't try the latest version of modo ( off my budget for the moment) but it seem to be a good package with a lot of advantage. For the one who are looking to compare modo to another tool Mudboox 2009 sound like a good rival ( I haven't try it yet). Also 3d coat seem like a good tool but I'm getting of topic.

I would not compare Modo with Mudbox. Mudbox is more expensive, instable and it is only a sculpting tool. It is more easy to use than ZBrush but limited (no 3d-painting). It is a typical Autodesk product (instable, expensive, frequent paid updates). Modo wins easily against Mudbox. ZBrush wins against Mudbox, even 3d-Coat wins against it.

3d-Coat is a nice and cheap alternative to ZBrush and beats Mudbox easily. But it does not have polygon modeling tools and it has no renderer. So Modo is still more "complete" in comparison. But if you already have a good modeler and renderer then 3d-coat is a good painting and sculpting addition to it.