08-18-2016, 12:02 AM
(This post was last modified: 08-18-2016, 12:19 AM by Extrudeface.)
Well, if it is a nice rock... I can tell you that you are not the type always digging for new graphic production tools, specially free ones, like I am. Nor need to be. I've used Wings professionally for many years.
There are people (specially developers) amazingly more qualified to answer this, I'm only an old artist. But, might my view help you some bit, and take some bits with a pinch of salt, of course. Blender is a tool that does it all in 3D and even beyond(video editor, lip syncing,etc). Is a full 3D package, like it is 3DS Max, or Maya (or these are with a ton of even more expensive plugins).I've used those at jobs, specially Max. It's just free and open source, with a GPL license. Wings is also open source (but different license) and is not a full package. Is a specialized modeler, IMHO focused mostly in subdiv modeling, I mean, excels in modeling the low-mid polygon count cage, that looks great once subdivided. And this obviously still is absolutely key for animation, for games, and for almost anything where you need to have serious control over your mesh, your wires. But Wings is not an animation application. It allows you to model anything, you just need to think on coupling it with some of the many (specialized, as well) tools that have popped out for extreme high polygon count, "sculpting". Like Sculptris, SculptGL, PolyBrush, MeshMixer (and now, actually Blender, too) and some other. (links can be found in the last two pages of this forums Off topic section, or just googling them). I say this as for game art production, which is your interest, these days almost always is required the normal maps (or equivalent) thing, even in a number of indie games. And for that you need to model details in meshes of 1 or 2 millions tris, at least, and then a tool or feature to export a normal map file. I have done tests modeling very detailed models with Wings, and is possible to certain mid-high level and IMO more controllable, but is not a tool to do the tasks that are Sculptris field, for example.You can reach a relative high level, but then export to Sculptris for instance, and detail there. So, one of those tools is the perfect companion for wings. You can uv map for texturing pretty well with the Wings included AutoUV system. And after exporting the 2D UV layouts, just paint over them in any 2D tool (PS, Gimp, Krita, Paint.net) to make the textures. Or that and some 3D paint in Blender. The beauty of just 2D painting the templates is that you can do it fully with it, but usually 3D painting needs always 2D work, too.
If you plan to animate, and like all this conversation, keep it in the free land, you then still certainly are going to be needing Blender. if you need to render ONLY, not animate, there's a lot of free renderers of very high quality and even some direct plugins to them from Wings. (IMO not essential)
One could then conclude: Then why not do the models fully in sculptris or the like? Well, this is a very personal opinion, but IMO you don't have the level of control over your model which you have in Wings3d.
The language of choice is a bit frowned upon around here (and IMO, righteously so, not that I see a sin to ask, lol !), because they coded wings in Erlang because they love the language, indeed. If you want to improve Wings, the best move, (again, IMHO) is to learn Erlang. And learning is good...
. I'm inclined to think learning C++ would be a tad harder, if you get into the deep stuff, than learning Erlang.
I have found through the years that the speed and flexibility of modeling that Wings has (you learn it very progressively, but it allows a very easy start(30 mins in my case, dunno if was ten years ago), and easy learning curve: That's one of the keys. Years of modeling, and it NEVER stops getting better as you evolve with it. And am talking even of handling its basic ways, let alone the ton of features developers have gone adding), and the capabilities to make even coffee for you that Blender has, do make a great combo for those of us that are able to see the virtues and advantages of Wings3D modeling system. And I have worked many years making games art at companies, using this tool, indeed. So, IMO is not a random forum opinion, at least in this very specific statement. A boss has a lot of resistance to some buddy that wants to use his modeler, or it was so years ago (not so much now). So, it is sure capable, or I wouldn't have been allowed. These days, as a freelancer, I use both applications a lot, for work more related to marketing and other non-game related graphic works, and they prove me every day how useful they both are. (my work often involves game art too, as well, indie work)
My advice is: Don't think, ever in single-tool way in matters of art production. I'm in every project going like this: I do my model, sometimes I unwrap it in Wings, sometimes I leave it for Blender's UV window. I export as OBJ, import in Blender, and even go back and force until is in a state where only minimal modeling edits are needed. Indeed, I fully know Blender's modeling set and advantages. My only issue is it takes me some good 10 minutes while I keep doing shift D to duplicate in Wings, or hitting d to repeat last command in Blender, to put a fast example. But like all, you can configure stuff, am just lazy, beyond my setup of always in Wings.
It depends a lot on what is your planned activity in the game making with Unreal, Unity or whatever the engine. I'm not clear on if are you a coder or an artist. If you are a programmer needing some meshes be done fast and easy, you are in the right track. If are an artist, all the above applies. You are going to need a hybrid tools setup. I'd say...No matter what. Is not the majority, but there are artists in indie projects in the edge of what is actually a triple A commercial game and for those Blender alone, if we carry things to an extreme of specs of modern games, wouldn't cut it either. They would need PBR based texturing tools like Allegorithmic Substance painter and/or Designer, or Quixel tool suite. Both cheap, but hardly avoidable for the today's gen, being strict. Luckily, an indie is free to do whatever, and even more, not every engine/target player's computer allows every freaking feature. Lots of casual games don't even use normal maps. Strategy game characters are still low pol in many cases.
For making art for games, and leaving aside a bit out of the new PBR trend (which needs a whole set of new skills, as usual), you would probably still need Wings3D (optionally. Or whatever your fav modeler, or all in Blender), Blender, AwesomeBump (or similar, for normal maps and etc, you can do some of this in Blender: I, again, prefer a specialized tool), surely certain special exporters for blender (collada, fbx, at least, the 2 included by default), and often some engine specific editors to make the content integrated in-game, work with engine's scripting system, etc.
Making art for a game -meaning the whole spectrum that is needed to cover all the art needed- has become a daunting, complex bazillion of tasks. At least if want to reach AAA quality or just have the effects and capabilities today's cards can pull. Wings is only a modeler, and basically a low - mid polygon count modeler. But imho, the best at that. In my very personal view, also compared to commercial modelers, in that specific area/step.
But indie games can only be made by a few individuals which can't often be paid. Any of the AAA stuff needs an army of skilled masters (friends of mine are in company of a hundred or much more colleagues, in the same studio). So, IMO, tools like Wings are still a jewel for indie or casual games development. But the Wings vs Blender is a flawed comparison, to start with. I prefer modeling with Wings, by far, and no other tool than Blender can, in the free land, do the other tasks I need for game art production or other fields' complex tasks. I need both. If wings wouldn't exist I'd model in Blender. And I have even done animation and commercial work in an elder tool called Anim8or, in free versions of Truespace, Organica, Amorphium and etc. All can be used. There are MANY more free modelers. I just think these two applications are the best in their areas... (in the free land. Commercial tools are deeper in many aspects (more features), but imo, in certain workflows, not better, some are actually worse and/or slower.)
For the field you are in, I'd make my mind with the multi-tools way of thinking, also in art matters. Even if you feel now at home with Wings (which is great) and mount entire levels with Wings, model all the game characters, items, objects, and etc, because is easier and very enjoyable. Just consider you're gonna need helper tools on the way.
PD: Wings is very well known for people that have been modeling for long... And it got deep diffusion in specific communities, and still has today. It hasn't got the huge army of users (am happy for that, btw, I love Blender, as well) that Blender counts on, neither the large number of developers, neither the funding. Just its quality and flexibility as a modeler, its ease of use, and it reached deeply to many places, despite those facts. I demonstrated to a small studio's bosses (well did so again years later, too, in several places) that I was faster modeling with it than all the other artists using Max, and I don't consider myself specially better than them(like always, each individual has strong and weak points. It was a faster modeling tool.). So the tool stayed in the studio (all the times). But yep, there's no "movies made with Wings3d", neither the powerful users based diffusion that Blender has, companies around making money with learning material, books authors, or the advertising capability of commercial tools (and even Blender!), or simply the huge user base installed which Max and Maya counts on since...always. And yet still... it's a jewel. The majority doesn't always know what is best... :p. They often know what other people say that is best, even not checking themselves, and it's a vicious chain. Even saying best is an error, here. IMO seems to be different mindsets for modeling. Some seem to be more prepared to get the grips of point based modeling, others with box/subdiv modeling, others feel at home sculpting, and so on. People should be more eager to actually try every tool till finding the right one for them. But giving a serious try to each.
My very brief, easy to read wall-of-text-ish 2c
There are people (specially developers) amazingly more qualified to answer this, I'm only an old artist. But, might my view help you some bit, and take some bits with a pinch of salt, of course. Blender is a tool that does it all in 3D and even beyond(video editor, lip syncing,etc). Is a full 3D package, like it is 3DS Max, or Maya (or these are with a ton of even more expensive plugins).I've used those at jobs, specially Max. It's just free and open source, with a GPL license. Wings is also open source (but different license) and is not a full package. Is a specialized modeler, IMHO focused mostly in subdiv modeling, I mean, excels in modeling the low-mid polygon count cage, that looks great once subdivided. And this obviously still is absolutely key for animation, for games, and for almost anything where you need to have serious control over your mesh, your wires. But Wings is not an animation application. It allows you to model anything, you just need to think on coupling it with some of the many (specialized, as well) tools that have popped out for extreme high polygon count, "sculpting". Like Sculptris, SculptGL, PolyBrush, MeshMixer (and now, actually Blender, too) and some other. (links can be found in the last two pages of this forums Off topic section, or just googling them). I say this as for game art production, which is your interest, these days almost always is required the normal maps (or equivalent) thing, even in a number of indie games. And for that you need to model details in meshes of 1 or 2 millions tris, at least, and then a tool or feature to export a normal map file. I have done tests modeling very detailed models with Wings, and is possible to certain mid-high level and IMO more controllable, but is not a tool to do the tasks that are Sculptris field, for example.You can reach a relative high level, but then export to Sculptris for instance, and detail there. So, one of those tools is the perfect companion for wings. You can uv map for texturing pretty well with the Wings included AutoUV system. And after exporting the 2D UV layouts, just paint over them in any 2D tool (PS, Gimp, Krita, Paint.net) to make the textures. Or that and some 3D paint in Blender. The beauty of just 2D painting the templates is that you can do it fully with it, but usually 3D painting needs always 2D work, too.
If you plan to animate, and like all this conversation, keep it in the free land, you then still certainly are going to be needing Blender. if you need to render ONLY, not animate, there's a lot of free renderers of very high quality and even some direct plugins to them from Wings. (IMO not essential)
One could then conclude: Then why not do the models fully in sculptris or the like? Well, this is a very personal opinion, but IMO you don't have the level of control over your model which you have in Wings3d.
The language of choice is a bit frowned upon around here (and IMO, righteously so, not that I see a sin to ask, lol !), because they coded wings in Erlang because they love the language, indeed. If you want to improve Wings, the best move, (again, IMHO) is to learn Erlang. And learning is good...
. I'm inclined to think learning C++ would be a tad harder, if you get into the deep stuff, than learning Erlang.I have found through the years that the speed and flexibility of modeling that Wings has (you learn it very progressively, but it allows a very easy start(30 mins in my case, dunno if was ten years ago), and easy learning curve: That's one of the keys. Years of modeling, and it NEVER stops getting better as you evolve with it. And am talking even of handling its basic ways, let alone the ton of features developers have gone adding), and the capabilities to make even coffee for you that Blender has, do make a great combo for those of us that are able to see the virtues and advantages of Wings3D modeling system. And I have worked many years making games art at companies, using this tool, indeed. So, IMO is not a random forum opinion, at least in this very specific statement. A boss has a lot of resistance to some buddy that wants to use his modeler, or it was so years ago (not so much now). So, it is sure capable, or I wouldn't have been allowed. These days, as a freelancer, I use both applications a lot, for work more related to marketing and other non-game related graphic works, and they prove me every day how useful they both are. (my work often involves game art too, as well, indie work)
My advice is: Don't think, ever in single-tool way in matters of art production. I'm in every project going like this: I do my model, sometimes I unwrap it in Wings, sometimes I leave it for Blender's UV window. I export as OBJ, import in Blender, and even go back and force until is in a state where only minimal modeling edits are needed. Indeed, I fully know Blender's modeling set and advantages. My only issue is it takes me some good 10 minutes while I keep doing shift D to duplicate in Wings, or hitting d to repeat last command in Blender, to put a fast example. But like all, you can configure stuff, am just lazy, beyond my setup of always in Wings.
It depends a lot on what is your planned activity in the game making with Unreal, Unity or whatever the engine. I'm not clear on if are you a coder or an artist. If you are a programmer needing some meshes be done fast and easy, you are in the right track. If are an artist, all the above applies. You are going to need a hybrid tools setup. I'd say...No matter what. Is not the majority, but there are artists in indie projects in the edge of what is actually a triple A commercial game and for those Blender alone, if we carry things to an extreme of specs of modern games, wouldn't cut it either. They would need PBR based texturing tools like Allegorithmic Substance painter and/or Designer, or Quixel tool suite. Both cheap, but hardly avoidable for the today's gen, being strict. Luckily, an indie is free to do whatever, and even more, not every engine/target player's computer allows every freaking feature. Lots of casual games don't even use normal maps. Strategy game characters are still low pol in many cases.
For making art for games, and leaving aside a bit out of the new PBR trend (which needs a whole set of new skills, as usual), you would probably still need Wings3D (optionally. Or whatever your fav modeler, or all in Blender), Blender, AwesomeBump (or similar, for normal maps and etc, you can do some of this in Blender: I, again, prefer a specialized tool), surely certain special exporters for blender (collada, fbx, at least, the 2 included by default), and often some engine specific editors to make the content integrated in-game, work with engine's scripting system, etc.
Making art for a game -meaning the whole spectrum that is needed to cover all the art needed- has become a daunting, complex bazillion of tasks. At least if want to reach AAA quality or just have the effects and capabilities today's cards can pull. Wings is only a modeler, and basically a low - mid polygon count modeler. But imho, the best at that. In my very personal view, also compared to commercial modelers, in that specific area/step.
But indie games can only be made by a few individuals which can't often be paid. Any of the AAA stuff needs an army of skilled masters (friends of mine are in company of a hundred or much more colleagues, in the same studio). So, IMO, tools like Wings are still a jewel for indie or casual games development. But the Wings vs Blender is a flawed comparison, to start with. I prefer modeling with Wings, by far, and no other tool than Blender can, in the free land, do the other tasks I need for game art production or other fields' complex tasks. I need both. If wings wouldn't exist I'd model in Blender. And I have even done animation and commercial work in an elder tool called Anim8or, in free versions of Truespace, Organica, Amorphium and etc. All can be used. There are MANY more free modelers. I just think these two applications are the best in their areas... (in the free land. Commercial tools are deeper in many aspects (more features), but imo, in certain workflows, not better, some are actually worse and/or slower.)
For the field you are in, I'd make my mind with the multi-tools way of thinking, also in art matters. Even if you feel now at home with Wings (which is great) and mount entire levels with Wings, model all the game characters, items, objects, and etc, because is easier and very enjoyable. Just consider you're gonna need helper tools on the way.
PD: Wings is very well known for people that have been modeling for long... And it got deep diffusion in specific communities, and still has today. It hasn't got the huge army of users (am happy for that, btw, I love Blender, as well) that Blender counts on, neither the large number of developers, neither the funding. Just its quality and flexibility as a modeler, its ease of use, and it reached deeply to many places, despite those facts. I demonstrated to a small studio's bosses (well did so again years later, too, in several places) that I was faster modeling with it than all the other artists using Max, and I don't consider myself specially better than them(like always, each individual has strong and weak points. It was a faster modeling tool.). So the tool stayed in the studio (all the times). But yep, there's no "movies made with Wings3d", neither the powerful users based diffusion that Blender has, companies around making money with learning material, books authors, or the advertising capability of commercial tools (and even Blender!), or simply the huge user base installed which Max and Maya counts on since...always. And yet still... it's a jewel. The majority doesn't always know what is best... :p. They often know what other people say that is best, even not checking themselves, and it's a vicious chain. Even saying best is an error, here. IMO seems to be different mindsets for modeling. Some seem to be more prepared to get the grips of point based modeling, others with box/subdiv modeling, others feel at home sculpting, and so on. People should be more eager to actually try every tool till finding the right one for them. But giving a serious try to each.
My very brief, easy to read wall-of-text-ish 2c