modo vs Hexagon

[Patrick210]

I recently bought modo 301, but haven't had time to learn it yet. I'd like opinions and comparisons of the poly-modeling aspects of the two programs. I'm not interested in the displacement painting, UV mappping, or rendering aspects right now. Also, not interested in hearing that some can't work with Hex because of bugs. I don't have a problem with bugs when poly-modeling in Hex. So, I'd just like to know from people who have used both, what is good/bad about the workflow and tools for poly-modeling between the two.

Thanks, Patrick

[jbshorty]

The obvious advantages of Modo for modeling:

1. macro recording, and saving of custom tools
2. advanced selection methods and saving/recalling of selection sets
3. paint brush deselecting
4. live preview of edge beveling, sliding, etc
5. doesn't slow down when extruding many faces at one time
6. mesh instancing (much lower overhead than Hex's cloning)
7. when using the "Tack" tool Modo can place the object anywhere along the surface (not just at the polygon center)
8. "curve instancing" will allow you to create as many clones along that curve as you need, not dependent on the # of segments
9. Many choices for action/axis centers, including the wonderful "local" option. Don't know how i got along without this before.
10. adjustable edge weighting so you can experimant with shapes before creating your final bevels
11. adjustable morph maps allow risk-free experimentation of shapes
12. retopo tools (not great but better than Hex's)
13. possible to morph one object's shape towards another's
14. curves (not just polylines acting as curves)
15. bridge tool with adjustable tension (i think the one tool which sold me on buying Modo)
16. More advanced tols for beveling, loop slicing, etc
17. edge and quad spinning
18. for primitives, seperate tesselation settings for X/Y/Z

The obvious advantages of Hex for modeling:

1. symmetry is based on the bounding box, not on world space
2. edge extrusion tools and target weld freakin' rock
3. DG (Modo has limited DG on some tools but not all)
4. Nurbs-influenced surface modeling tools (Hex rules here)
5. Doo-Sabin smoothing (don't know about other people but i find this smoothing type to be very useful)
6. better free-tesselation tool
7. "cage" deformer
8. soft selections

sorry if this sounds like just a feature list, but the rest of it would all be workflow and that's too personal to be argued...

shorty

[Grendel]

I've puchased it as well Patrick, in general I don't feel as smooth when modeling as I do in Hex. The line tools are absent as well as the advanced surfacing tools. This is not a problem normally but they incredibly handy for certain things as you already know.

There are also some tools missing that you need to get scripts for(weld) and the universal manipulator is not as good as Hex's. It just seems to take a few extra steps for most things when in Modo compared to Hexagon.

I don't have a problem with Hex/Amapi modeling either and until Modo get's the same tools I just use it for rendering

[cartoonMike]

Having used Hex and now learning Modo 301, here's my views about the differences of modeling:

Hex's tweak tool is much better. This may be caused by my noob-state in Modo. I still find it easier to to minor tweaking in Hex.

I like hitting the space-bar to change selection type.

splitting/adding rings or loops are controled visually in Modo, there's a slider at the top of the active window that you can position the downward pointing triangle to place the location of the new ring/loop. In an properties window you can set the number of the rings/loops and whether they are porportionate or not. Set them where you want them and hit the spacebar and you're done.

One the nicer things in Modo is the Falloff tool. This is a big help when making changes to a large portion of your mesh. You can interactively set the strength and size of the falloff and when you scale/move/bend/etc the mesh, the effect is strongest at the center of the falloff and tapers off as you would expect.

Since Modo supports scripting, there's many scripts that you can incorporate into your Modo toolset. There's a script that will make a perfect circle out of an selection of edges. And you can record Macros so that series of steps you took to create a window(for example) can be copied and replayed to create many windows. You can even save that macro and use it on another project/file. I don't know scripting, but I was able to install a few scripts and make a few macros without much problems.

Modo does have a steeper learning curve, but in my case it's been worth it. As good as Hex is, I feel that for modeling Modo is better. Like with any tool, it's not so much the tool but the person using it that will determine the quality of the creation.

I bought Modo for its modeling, UV mapping and painting features -- so my decision was based on all those features and not just modeling. If I were to use Modo just for modeling, I may have continued using Hex beacause I am familiar with it and wouldn't have to learn yet another interface.

However, I am glad that I did get Modo. Overall, I am finding that it's modeling abilities are exceptional and imho, better than Hex's in my use of them.

hth

[mon_stdnt]

MY COMPARISON IS FROM A VIDEO TUTORIAL

Well Patrick, I personally don't have Modo, but I've seen tutorial videos(the camera one) and is very impressive. Their is some features that Hex doesn't have, for sure.
But in Modo they are extra steps you have to do in order to complete a simple operation, that Hex doesn't require.
But in the other hand Modo is more tecnical, meaning actual number input.

As for the navigation I find Hex very user-friendly, than Modo, but that's just me, since i've tried a trial version and didn't worked out for me.

[Sketchy]

I've only just scratched modo's modeling surface, so I can't possibly be a good authority on this comparison topic with Hex. Like you, Patrick, I'm not interested in UV mapping, displacement painting, etc., at least for now. All I'm concerned about right now is the poly/subd modeling aspect.

So far, I can't really say anything bad about modo's. It's simply different. That's all. After having watched Andrew Brown's wristwatch tutorial repeatedly, each time I was thinking to myself most of the steps could be translated to Hex. Or Blender. Possibly into Wings3d even. It's because as I have said before the principles are universal. The workflows are simply different. There are things in modo that can't be found in Hex. And the opposite is true. But I'm impressed how the guy (Andrew Brown) could make it look so smooth and easy modeling in modo. Seems very efficient.

Bottom line for me is that I don't have a lot of time learning 2-3 applications at once. I have to pick one. Modo's dev team comes from the industry standard LW. The experience is there in all aspects, modeling, rendering, texturing, you name it. It's got the most optimistic future for me. I like what I see in Lux's gallery. It works smoothly on my system. The UI is pleasing to the eye. Compared to XSI, LW, MAX, Maya, it's very well-organized. It's developing faster than any 3d package. So I figured I might as well learn it now than later.

But that's just me and my 2c.

[jbshorty]

Another thing which was important for me in choosing Modo was that i do a lot of my work in Rhino. I would need time to shift my brain back into Rhino mode after leaving Hex. This was complicated further because i was also trying to use Carrara for rendering. 3 programs, 3 different sets of controls. But Modo on the other hand, i feel is a very natural compliment to Rhino. It feels very mechanical, which suits my taste. And now i do nearly everything in Rhino and Modo, switching back and forth between the two programs all day long, my brain/hands just go along happily...

shorty

[steama]

Originally Posted by Sketchy

Bottom line for me is that I don't have a lot of time learning 2-3 applications at once. I have to pick one. Modo's dev team comes from the industry standard LW. The experience is there in all aspects, modeling, rendering, texturing, you name it. It's got the most optimistic future for me. I like what I see in Lux's gallery. It works smoothly on my system. The UI is pleasing to the eye. Compared to XSI, LW, MAX, Maya, it's very well-organized. It's developing faster than any 3d package. So I figured I might as well learn it now than later.

But that's just me and my 2c.

Many same reasons for me.

Hex:
Hex is the most user friendly poly moldeling application I have ever used. I just wanted more with Hex 2. As far as poly modeling and workflow Hex was the best I have ever used. As for the future of Hex, even though I appreciate DAZ more all the time, I am not sold on Hex in DAZ hands.

modo:
Powerful industry standard. Solid, excellent, skilled user base and totally dedicated developers. So very much more than modeling options (who couldn't use these industry best 'other than modeling' options?). Training options, wow, no comparison I just got Dan Ablan's 3d Garage for modo 301 (cheap too---for now)!

So much more excellent focus on every single level with modo.

summary:
1) Both applications good at modeling---
some features go to Hex and some go to modo
2) Development is where Luxology smokes DAZ
3) Dedication to their software quality goes to Luxology
4) Industry standard = modo
5) Solid application future (current snapshot) = modo
6) Financial Resources: both companies are loaded
7) User bases: DAZ = amature (no offence) Luxology = pro
8) Learning resources = modo. Who could ask for more?
9) Versatility: modo hands down. Hex 2 NEVER delivered on the promise.

Most things considered IMHO I can't see why any 'future looking Pro' would ever concentrate on Hex over modo for most any reason.

Sure, you pay more than a buck ninety-nine for modo but is it worth it? IMHO there is no doubt modo is the one to chose. Of course others will rightfully disagree.

Peace,
Stan

[sailor-ed]

I agree with Steama on all points. I would add that it is very nice to see active participation on the users forum by many of the modo staff and regular Friday "modcasts". And I have never encountered RTFM on the forum in-spite of its heavily professional tone.

[molaram]

steama is so much right.
i use hex, modo and silo. between all Hex has the most direct workflow, ease of use and speed. But besides all i will put hex behind both of them. Not because of the feature set, but its the development behind. I think all modeler developers should thank Daz for ruining a potential modelling bigboy.

[Wesgraphics]

I think marketing is more of the issue with Hexagon than the other other two applications.

Hexagon will appeal to the Hobbyist who doesn't want to plunk down a 1000 bucks on something they will only do occasionally.

I use hexagon and am quite happy with the work flow. To me that is more important than having extra tools that I may or may not use.

Hexagon is also a modeler and not a jack of all trades application like modo.

I also have Animation Master which was light years ahead of other applications. The one thing it was lacking was 3D paint, which can be obtained as a third party application. I liked the fact that it had sophisticated animation tools, along with a nice way to make lip sync built in.

Other applications I have are Carrara 6 Pro - one of the friendliest applications around. trueSpace 7.5 - odd interface, but very sophisticated scripting, methods to make your own procedural shaders and all the tools that are standard to box, edge and point modeling and etc.

Looked at modo, but haven't seen anything there that I'd want to plunk down that amount of cash for as there are ways and means of doing stuff differently.

Five years from now, 3D CG applications will make us all look back and wonder why we bought these "dinosaur" applications.

[wibble]

I find Modo very awkward. It rarely does anything in a single click. If you want a sphere, you click on the Sphere icon and then click on more buttons. If you want to sculpt, you click on 'Sculpt' and then you have to set your brush settings or you'll just get nothing happening. This approach really makes a program a pain to learn because it forces you to study all the options right from the start.


I prefer a program to always use default options for its tools.

[jbshorty]

Originally Posted by wibble

I find Modo very awkward. It rarely does anything in a single click. If you want a sphere, you click on the Sphere icon and then click on more buttons. If you want to sculpt, you click on 'Sculpt' and then you have to set your brush settings or you'll just get nothing happening. This approach really makes a program a pain to learn because it forces you to study all the options right from the start.


I prefer a program to always use default options for its tools.

Modo is actually faster at drawing primitives than both Hexagon and Silo. But i think most people are unaware of a few tricks:

• If you press CTRL key while dragging, it will constrain the shape equilaterally
• After dragging out the shape, you can RMB drag in viewport to set the tesselation. It's not required to this by numeric input!
• If you need to drag out a 2D circle or grid, first pick the sphere or cube primitve. Then click once in viewport but do not drag. Then press CTRL + LMB to drag out the 2D shape.

I would disagree with you about using default settings. When you are switching back and forth between tools, it is much faster if the software remembers the settings of the last time a tool was used. Hexagon's way used to drive me crazy.

shorty

[rantingrich1]

I have messed around with Hexagon and made a few charachers but find it BUUUUGY! For one Why wont Hexagon 2.1 retain the VIEWS you set up? I also can figure out how to make something happen in Carrara? I have written DAZ numerous times about this and all i get is silence!

I have a cartoon COW that I made in HEX! Imported it into Carrara no prob. I gave her (Cause she has TEETS) I want to attach bones to. I want to have a set of eyes and eyelids that I can move independantly of the BONES. Probelm is I want the bones to move the body, and head around with the eyes in the head but want to move them around free of interference of the bones, same with the eyelids!

PLEASE ADVISE

One can send me an e-mail also

rantingrich1@verizon.net

Rich