Hexagon vs. SketchUp

[Markku]

-> WillBellJr - W-Tools looked like the kind of stuff that is meant for us "control freaks". I would definitely have it too if I had LW. W-Tools shows the hi-end spectrum of our aim. But we are not demanding people - we are happy with much less.

-> TheRetiredSailor - It's good to have one man more in the ranks. Any new arrival to "this side" may turn Eovia's head. Hope it's you!

-> AlainK - SketchUp works like my brain thinks (simple things). I have treated it hard and bad and I don't remember it ever crash, which is almost unnatural when you think of software in general.
Your question surprises me so much that I don't know if it's a trick. If you really mean that, then I have to say that I have no major gripes about SU.

There are some things it's missing which makes me jump into Hex. Maybe SU should support in doing curvy/round stuff better. It should have tools for filleting/chamfering and a text tool. Illustrator import is high on my wish list too. I can't think of anything else right now. Can you?

[medeamajic]

Illistrator import sounds good.

[AlainK]

Originally Posted by Markku

->Your question surprises me so much that I don't know if it's a trick. If you really mean that, then I have to say that I have no major gripes about SU.

There are some things it's missing which makes me jump into Hex. Maybe SU should support in doing curvy/round stuff better. It should have tools for filleting/chamfering and a text tool. Illustrator import is high on my wish list too. I can't think of anything else right now. Can you?

That was a dumb question on my part. I reread your first post and I missed the "mechanical design" part. So, I agree, SU is limited to drawing straight lines and uncomplicated curves... my apology..

[Josh Carter]

People usually think of 3D tools as *either* artistic or CAD-style, but sometimes you need a tool that's in-between. SketchUp is marketed for that kind of thing -- "design visualization" or something like that -- but I think Hexagon is a reasonable player, too. I've used both programs a bit but I'm not a master of either, so take my comments with that in mind.

* SketchUp is really geared towards architectural visualization, and it sometimes falls short for mechanical design. For example, it gets flakey with small measurements (like under .1 inch), and common operations like chamfer are not very easy. Hexagon 1.2 is much better in this regard.

* SketchUp's spline drawing and snapping is really good, easily the best in town. Hexagon can extract splines from objects, though, which also gives very clean and accurate results.

* Hexagon's thickness tool is fantastic, and very useful for mechanical design/prototyping. SketchUp doesn't have anything like it.

* You can create objects with accurate sizes in Hexagon, but it often means typing in numbers in the object inspector. (Not really a problem.) Someone else mentioned that Hex 2 will have more decimal places here -- I look forward to that.

* SketchUp has dimensioning tools which are quite handy.

* Both programs are made by really great companies that listen to their customers.

Also, one other big factor I haven't seen in this discussion: price. I don't do design full-time, so my company doesn't buy me SolidWorks like it does for the mechanical engineers. Hexagon is $200 (list price), SketchUp is $500, everything else is way more expensive. When it's money coming out of your pocket, Hexagon is more and more compelling.

If you're doing full-time mechanical design, I agree you need a CAD or solid modeling package. But if you're doing more speculative industrial design and prototyping, I think Hexagon is worth considering, especially for its price.

[AlainK]

Good post, Josh. However, just bear in mind that boolean operations in polygon modelers like Hex are not the same as those found in solid modelers, or apps with NURBS features. Although you would see a clean-looking result after a boolean op in Hex, in reality there's an invisible messy mesh underneath it. Unless I'm using Rhino, or any other reliable NURBS modeler for that matter, I wouldn't count on them too much. By its very nature, there can never be a sub-d modeler with perfect boolean op.

[Josh Carter]

Point taken on the booleans. I'm pretty impressed with Hex's booleans, though. Cinema 4D falls apart after a few boolean operations; the mesh turns into a real mess. Hexagon does a much better job. I wish I had Amapi for this kind of modeling, but alas, I can't justify that kind of money.

[efflux]

From what I remember Hex's booleans are OK. I remember importing it into Blender and the mesh was as clean as most other apps perform. Certainly no extraneous edges. Blender's own booleans have been radically improved. They used to be terrible. Hex's booleans are good enough. It's only if they are a real mess where you can't even clean them up that it becomes a problem. I think with booleans you have to be careful how you use them. They are OK on simple geometric forms. I regard them as a very important tool. Although I may not use them often, sometimes I need them.

[AlainK]

Point well taken, efflux. Booleans are ok if you don't intend to do any closeup renders. If you do, then you might have a hard time editing the sharp portions such as doing some filleting/chamfering/beveling for the purpose of catching lights, which makes the rendering beautifully executed. As you can imagine, a polygon circle, or any curve for that matter, is not the same as a NURBS circle or curve. In contrast to NURBS, a polygon curve is basically a collection of adjoining short lines of which every point runs along a path. Therefore the smoothness (or appearance of it) depends on the subdivision level. For example, if you do a boolean with a cube and a curvy object with no subdivision, you can't perform a sub-d smoothing after the op without getting a very messy mesh.

A boolean hole you see in Hex is somewhat deceiving. In theory, holes cannot stand on their own without the supporting wires connected to the main object. The wires are there, but were made invisible for simplicity. Much like the way how SketchUp works. So, yes, you can make Hex behave just like SketchUp by using Hex's booleans and chamfering/filleting/beveling, that is with the sub-d feature disabled.

[efflux]

I think it all depends on how you use booleans. I use them for very rigid stuff. The obvious first example being cutting a concave sphere shape into any other poly. In this case you'd line up a UV sphere with it's central axis perpendicular to the surface and even an exact loop with the surface as long as the join has nice even edges and surrounding parallel loop (or near, as long as they don't cross) you can chamfer it and it turns out perfect. Once you move that model out of Hex you could get problems because the hidden edges appear or if you are joining things up haphazardly or on organic type shapes then it's impossible to get proper smoothed shapes but do it very systematically with simple shapes and use chamfering carefully, thinking about the fact that chamfering or subdividing must work, then booleans such as Hex's are as good as they ever need to be. At least they produce simple enough results to be able to directly edit some edges. For some reason many programs produce a total mess of edges that do nothing. It seems it's either one way or the other. However I've yet to use a program that arranges all the edges in some kind of very neat systematic manner but as long as there are no unecessary edges, I'm happy.

[shaunmckinnon]

In full honesty, Hex does lack a lot of usability when it comes to any form of rigid design. For example; I may need a more organic look for my character, however, her gun needs to be more rigid and precise. Especially when it's a huge **s gattling gun . The room she's standing in may have objects that need to be symmetrical and spaced evenly between eachother. I realize we can jump back and forth between softwares to complete this task, but lets be real: If i have to switch between Carrara, Hexagon, Lightwave, and SketchUp to resolve an issue I'm having with my model, why wouldn't I upgrade, (break the bank), and purchase someone who offers all this in one tidy package, such as Maya, Cinema 4D, or Autodesk 3D Studio Max.

I've noticed that Eovia's response to most issues tends to be, "Yeah, we hear what you're saying,...buuuuuuuuuut, we're focusing more on our symmetry tool that can auto fillet and create two million microfibre hairs on a model YOU CAN'T EVEN CREATE YET (WOWZA pre-order now!!!) ."
Eovia has a beautiful renderer, and hexagon is wonderful subdivision modeller, definitely both are ease-of-use products. But when you want the full package, you shouldn't have to buy all of Inagoni, Digital Carvers Guild, Hexagon, Carrara, and Amapi, just to get what you need out of your product.

just ignore me, I guess I'm a bit annoyed having been one of these idiots who's done this in order to "save" money.

[Couerl]

Well, wouldn't you have been more of an "idiot" to spend 5 times as much just in order to make a gun?

What you are experiencing is a normal human case of "Hey my needs aren't being met" and that's fine. You know a feature request was given out for Hexagon before the development began and if you didn't put anything down on your wish list there than tisk tisk... I put a lot of things on there and they got at least 80% of them, which is way more than I could have wanted realistically. One big one a lot of people wanted was a programmable mouse button, but that didn't happen and I can understand why and I'm cool with it. I think instead of feeling like an idiot you should be feeling gratefull and smart for having so much bang for the buck, but that's just me.

[shaunmckinnon]

My bang for my buck was well over 1300 bucks canadian. its very hard to choose a software that really is a bang for your buck so to speak. i think you really get what you pay for. Hex is good for the most part, and i really was just using a deliberate exaggerated example, but the idea is to gain functionality. And alot of people complain after the wish list, when the usabilty and functions that are naturally expected are not there. Especially when they're available in free softwares as a default application.

[TheRetiredSailor]

One could take what you are saying and "run with the ball," ShaunMcKinnon. I bought Carrara because I wanted better rendering and lighting options ($250.00). After getting into creating models, I wanted better modeling tools so I bought Hexagon ($155.00). Having been frustrated with the UV mapping in Carrara as well as the lack of complete UV mapping tools in Hexagon v. 1.X, I bought Ultimate Unwrap3D ($50.00). Then, I bought the upgrade to Carrara 5.0 ($99.00) so that I could get the Poser import capability.

So, I have spent $554.00 on Eovia software so far (more than the cost of XSI Foundation) and I'm considering spending another $99.00 on Hexagon 2. While not a popular thing to say on this forum, I find myself hesitating. What if Hexagon 2's UV mapping is more like Carrara's and I still have to go out to another program (Unwrap3D)? What if Hexagon 2 has bugs in it like the numeric entry bug in Hexagon 1 that drove everyone nuts? Keep in mind that it seems (to me anyway) that about the time they get Hexagon 1.X running smoothly it is time to plop down more money for the next version.

Perhaps it is time to buy XSI or Lightwave which are more mature, have a wide selection of tools and capabilities already and have wider industry/3rd party support.

Don't get me wrong, I like Eovia and I really don't have regrets over what I've bought. I have learned a lot and have gotten good use out of them. In part, I'm taking your post and applying it to myself (having a little fun with it in the process). On the other hand though, I am giving serious thought as to Carrara and Hexagon being the long-term software tools that I will want to use. If they aren't, then I need to start looking at the ones that will be.

[Couerl]

Okay, fair enough, I'd just like to point out that A, the free softwares are a pain mostly and don't deliver a well rounded workflow at all and are way over romanticized IMO (talk about getting what you pay for) ;)
And B, Not even Maya "Does it all" and although 1300 is alot, I think I spend 169 a year on Carrara upgrades and got H1 for 99 bucks on day one of the release, so I don't feel like an idiot at all. That all said, of course we all want more functionality, I have a wish list too and it's based mostly on edge modeling and while hex is very powerful there, I do wish for a few more things that could really make it blow doors for the kind of thing I like to do, which is mostly light architecture (rooms) and dumb little scenes. Like I said, its perfectly normal to feel like things are missing that should be there, but I don't think it's any reason to feel like an idiot or like you were duped. I think you did right and instead of looking at what you can't do (way too many 3d people do that) you should be looking at what you can do instead.

Isn't that fair too?

[shaunmckinnon]

sure is. I think i'm just a bit annoyed. i mean, i originalli purchased ac3d after reviewing the gallery, (waste of money unless you're REALLY good). I then purchased Shade 7 thinking I could get something better. navigating through that program is near to impossible it seems. So then I bought Bryce 5, and Poser 4. At this point I'd started an addiction. After seeing the gallery in Carrara, I had to purchase it thinking it was the begin all and end all product. Boy was I wrong. The gallery was mostly work done in 3DS Max and other top of the line programs, then rendered in Carrara, (and I even wonder if that's true). Then when Hex was released, I thought, finally something to make life easier. And I was pleasently surprised at how much functionality it had. I feel sometimes that Carrara 4 should've offered that functionality right off the bat. I guess Eovia's growing with their clientel.

(In one complete year I purchased:
AC3D, Shade 7, Poser and 4 and 5, Corel Suite 12, Dreamweaver 2004 (ouch), Carrara 4 and 5, Hexagon 1 and 2, almost all of the Inagoni and Digital Carvers Guild plugins, Transposer 1 and 2, VectorStyle 1 and 2, and Architools. I think that's it.) Talk about an addiction. . actually I guess all starting businesses have to fork out some coin in the beginning. I tell you this much, wive's don't understand our toys. )

[shaunmckinnon]

oh, does anyone want to purchase AC3D and Shade 7 cheap from me? Don't really have much use for them anymore.

[WillBellJr]

Don't feel bad Shaun, I agree with Couerl, we all have wishes for just a few SMALL additions to Hexagon - hopefully Eovia will put them in after Hex 2 is out and floating on its own.

I crashed dived into this place after buying Carrara 5 Pro wishing for wind dynamics for the plants and they actually added this in v5.1! So I can join the rest in saying Eovia listens to its customers.

Hopefully they'll add more snapping and GUI tools for hardbody work in Hex (and Carrara) and we'll be even more satisfied.

As far as "moving" to Lightwave or XSI - I've >>come<< from those applications to Hex and Carrara.

Lightwave and XSI et al, don't let you create landscapes and plants as Carrara does. Granted, Lightwave threw in the Vue 5 Infinite bone but I've been using Vue since v4 and I have a whole big thread over at CGTalk as to whether Carrara is a viable replacement for Vue considering all the problems I and others have had using it...
(...And IMO it is good replacement, that's why I'm here...)

I know how you feel about spend'n yo monae - I'm the same and imagine also being into video editing / DVD authoring, games, website and software development, plus music composition - ALL my spare money goes into computer software and hardware. (And sometimes money I don't have... )
Take a gander at my workstation and you'll see why I'm broak! (And those aren't even up to date pics of what I have now! )

-Will

[TheRetiredSailor]

Thanks for the reminder about landscapes and plants in XSI and Lightwave, Will. I imagine that the inability to use Poser characters as easily as you can in Carrara is another strike against XSI and Lightwave as well.

[AlainK]

Shaunmckinnon,
It would be nice if we could discuss what you're working on. Specific things that are giving you a pain in the... and let's see if what you're shooting for are not really achievable in Hexagon 1.21 as you say. Give us a couple of pics maybe. Current Hex has snapping tools such as on vertices, midpoints, along edges, in addition to the grid snapping and rulers. Also, it's got rectangular array copying, object alignment using the SHIFT key, etc. I myself didn't get to know Hex 1.21 in a few couple of shots. I discovered features later which I thought were not even there...

And maybe by your samples we could figure what specific features we could request. They may not be in Hex 2, but they can be in 2.01, 2.0282, etc. Let's see if we could all help make Hex an overall modeling app we want it to be so we don't have to look for another. Or maybe the feature we want is already there...

Overall, I'm simply curious what exactly you say are not there.

[shaunmckinnon]

say i load in an ai of some text from a program such as coreldraw, and i want to make this text a model. Now say it's the letter B. I first have to extrude the outside, enclose it, then extrude the inside, enclose it, then boolean the inside from the outside. Why can't i combine the two objects making the inside obvious negative space? not so frustrating on one single letter, but say your doing what i'm doing which is a huge logo for Big Daddys Docks. I'm creating the letters BDD into an actual dock. I've done fairly well importing the actual ai into hex. Only problem; had to make sure and double check that none of those pieces had holes in them, or i'd have to boolean them out. Is there a way to tell hex that the inside of the B or D or any enclosed letter is negative space, without doing a boolean? This would make framing houses, or anything a little easier.