Why is the 13.5 version reduced to the 13.0 version?

[Hugging_Bear]

Hi guys,
I tried to import some 3d objects today. It works but I lost all the textures. In the 13.0 version, it was possible to add the textures under the tab 'Materials'. This tab - and therefore this function - doesn't exist any longer in the 13.5 version.
So, Moho-guys - why do you punish your customers for upgrading to a newer version? My understanding is that you add functionality to your program and not reduce it!
I'm quite angry and disappointed!
Is there a way you can add the function in your next update?

[Greenlaw]

Smith Micro's Moho 13.0 had many problems and when Lost Marble took over, the dev team decided it was easier to build the new Moho 13.5 on 12.5 code. Unfortunately, this meant some features that were developed for Moho 13.0 had to be given up (i.e., Paint Tools, new Actions window, etc.,) I imagine some of the 13.0 features may possibly return in a future version of Moho in an improved form.

I think the new features they introduced in 13.5 have are quite innovative (Vitruvian Bones, SmartWarp Layer, Wind Dynamics, improved layered PSD support, etc.,) and their usefulness more than makes up for the loss of the 13.0 features.

But if you really need the Moho 13.0 features, you can keep 13.0 installed on the same computer you're running Moho 13.5 on. I know some users here switch between the two programs as needed.

Personally, I have tried using 3D objects in Moho in the past and I always found it awkward and too limiting. When working with 3D objects, instead of bringing 3D objects into Moho, I find it easier to bring my rendered Moho animations into a 3D program. That or render my 2D elements in Moho, 3D elements in a 3D program, and then composite the results in a compositing program.

Hope this helps.

[Hugging_Bear]

Smith Micro's Moho 13.0 had many problems and when Lost Marble took over, the dev team decided it was easier to build the new Moho 13.5 on 12.5 code. Unfortunately, this meant many features that were developed for Moho 13.0 had to be given up (i.e., Paint Tools, new Actions window, etc.,)

Some of the 13.0 features will possibly return in a future version of Moho in an improved form. I don't know if that will happen in Moho 14 but I'm sure Lost Marble is listening to users.

I think the new features they introduced in 13.5 have been more innovative and their usefulness more than makes up for the loss of the 13.0 features.

But if you really need the Moho 13.0 features, you can keep 13.0 installed on the same computer you're running Moho 13.5 on. I know some users here switch between the two programs as needed.

Personally, I have tried using 3D objects in Moho in the past and I always found it awkward and too limiting. When working with 3D objects, instead of bringing 3D objects into Moho, I find it easier to bring my rendered Moho animations into a 3D program. That or render my 2D elements in Moho, 3D elements in a 3D program, and then composite the results in a compositing program.

Hope this helps.

Working with two programs brings the problem of timing by pan and tracking shots. I think, the option to have 3D backgrounds is/would be a cool feature. Max Fleischer combined 2D animation with 3D backgrounds in the 1930s. Since Moho has already a 3D stage, it would be a missed opportunity not to include this feature.

[SimplSam]

Hi guys,
I tried to import some 3d objects today. It works but I lost all the textures.
...

The .OBJs are just text files. Check for references to material files that end with .mtl, and similar check the .mtl text files for references to images. If any paths are incorrect - fix them and save. Or make them local to same directory (i.e. have no path) - and put all relevant files in the same location. Moho should then load the textures OK.

[Hugging_Bear]

Hi guys,
I tried to import some 3d objects today. It works but I lost all the textures.
...

The .OBJs are just text files. Check for references to material files that end with .mtl, and similar check the .mtl text files for references to images. If any paths are incorrect - fix them and save. Or make them local to same directory (i.e. have no path) - and put all relevant files in the same location. Moho should then load the textures OK.

Hi SimplSam,
thanks for your tip! I'll try to do what you suggested!

[BigBoiiiJones]

Just learn and use Blender. I never understood why people always wanted to use Moho 3D objects feature its a gimmick. Its better to import your 2D into a 3D environment not a 3D to 2D environment unless its rendered of course for After Effects or something but we're talking about raw 2D/3D workflows here.

[Greenlaw]

I totally agree with BigBoiiiJones. To me, Moho's 3D environment is suitable for working with 2D art in 3D space (i.e., for multiplane layering,) but it's much easier to work with 3D objects in a dedicated 3D program (like Blender.) As mentioned earlier, I would just map my rendered Moho footage to cards in a 3D animation program, or merge the results in a compositing program. It's easier this way and the results should look better too.

I do wish Moho had a system for transferring camera data and placeholder objects for layers (i.e., nulls) between 3D animation and compositing programs. I typically use FBX for this purpose but Moho's FBX support is too limited.

At least there is a script for moving a 3D Moho camera to After Effects. After Effects is always a special case because it doesn't natively support FBX, so 2D/3D animation programs need to use other methods to exchange camera and null position data with Ae.

Reallusion's Cartoon Animator has an interesting approach: When linking a CA project to an Ae comp, it renders the 2D data before mapping it to layers in Ae. After that, the link can update other keyframed data between the programs in either direction. I've only dabbled with CA and haven't actually used it in production, but if Moho had something like this I think I'd use the Moho version routinely with Ae.

[chucky]

I'm not sure about the approach of, 'If you want to use Moho, you should use After Effects.'
Yeah Nah

[Greenlaw]

I'm not sure about the approach of, 'If you want to use Moho, you should use After Effects.'
Yeah Nah

There's a ton of stuff I can do in Ae that I can't do in Moho and vice versa. To me, the two programs compliment each other nicely!

Some examples: We used Ae with DuIK (a puppet animation plugin) for season 1 of Dawn of the Croods and I can honestly say I never want to go back to creating puppet animations in Ae again. We did get a lot of nice work out of that combo but compared to animating characters rigged in Moho, Ae with DuIK was slow and clunky. That said, I wouldn't want to use Moho as my main compositing or FX program either. By season 3, we had switched to Moho for the character animation but we still composited all our shots in Ae. Thanks goodness for Moho's Layer Comps window...IMO, it seems to have been made with Ae in mind!

Moho actually plays well with many of the other programs (2D and 3D) I use, so why not? Personally, I'd love to see more improvements for data interchange between Moho and other animation/graphics programs.

[SimplSam]

Just learn and use Blender. I never understood why people always wanted to use Moho 3D objects feature its a gimmick. Its better to import your 2D into a 3D environment not a 3D to 2D environment unless its rendered of course for After Effects or something but we're talking about raw 2D/3D workflows here.

I certainly have used Blender as a 3D tool standalone to render 3D objects / object sequences to include in 2D animation scenes, and occasionally rendered Moho 2D into Blender 3D scenes, but more often I like to use Blender to prep 3D objects for import/use in Moho (3D in a 2.5D scene) - especially when you want interaction in the scene.

Moho has no ability to animate the constituent parts of an imported 3D object, but you can break .obj objects apart and re-assemble within Moho - so you can then 3D transform the individual 3D parts (like Rota blades on an otherwise static 3D helicopter, or the wheels on a 3D car/bike).


(5yr old test example: - will update with newer later ...)

Also ... often the 3D rendered out of Blender is too 3D looking ... i.e. Shading, Lighting, Reflections etc and the 3D Objects look out of place in the Moho 2.5D world.

I certainly would welcome improvements in the handling of 3D objects in Moho (particularly lighting) - without attempting to make it a 3D animation tool.

[BigBoiiiJones]

Just learn and use Blender. I never understood why people always wanted to use Moho 3D objects feature its a gimmick. Its better to import your 2D into a 3D environment not a 3D to 2D environment unless its rendered of course for After Effects or something but we're talking about raw 2D/3D workflows here.

I certainly have used Blender as a 3D tool standalone to render 3D objects / object sequences to include in 2D animation scenes, and occasionally rendered Moho 2D into Blender 3D scenes, but more often I like to use Blender to prep 3D objects for import/use in Moho (3D in a 2.5D scene) - especially when you want interaction in the scene.

Moho has no ability to animate the constituent parts of an imported 3D object, but you can break .obj objects apart and re-assemble within Moho - so you can then 3D transform the individual 3D parts (like Rota blades on an otherwise static 3D helicopter, or the wheels on a 3D car/bike).


(5yr old test example: - will update with newer later ...)

Also ... often the 3D rendered out of Blender is too 3D looking ... i.e. Shading, Lighting, Reflections etc and the 3D Objects look out of place in the Moho 2.5D world.

I certainly would welcome improvements in the handling of 3D objects in Moho (particularly lighting) - without attempting to make it a 3D animation tool.

Look up NPR rendering style for Blender you'll find a lot of ways to get things to look more 2D its just learning how to use the shader tab and using nodes to make NPR styled assets. You can make lights cast toony shadows too.



This third party asset makes it super to make NPR textures and shaders work as well for $30



There are several channels that cover NPR style stuff too like

https://www.youtube.com/@KristofDedene

https://www.youtube.com/@super-bnpr

https://www.youtube.com/@therealblenderbox

https://www.youtube.com/@danielsgulbis7627/videos

[SimplSam]

I did end-up using / customising a Eris Snail BNPR material a while ago for a 3D train animation that I needed - as it was far easier to animate the movements and camera in Blender.

I will look further into the LBS plugin (though I previously tried to follow his tutes - and got lost).

I would naturally still prefer an improved Moho native solution, as even recreating for the demo below took way too long to work-things-out (again).


(Blender Train raw - https://www.blendswap.com/blend/5155 -- ChrisKuhn)




(Blender Train/Trucks/Tracks + npr + ani. Moho particle smoke)

[pihms]

On the most part, I would create the blender animation in Blender with a transparent background and export that as an image sequence, then bring into Moho. Simple objects such as rectangles imaged with a building texture works well and is quite effective in Moho. Cartoon Animator works well with the swapping back and forth between vector and raster programs, in which they have working with programs such as Krita, Photoshop, Affinity Photo/Designer, and Clip Studio Paint. In Affinty, they are saving over imported PSD files as an interchange format with DAM applications. In the past any vector would get rasterized in that interchange. With their newer version 5 they seem to have the ability to swap vectors back and form as well, which I have not tried that, but have been successful with the raster interchange, fast and easy. Still Cartoon Animator doesn't have the great abilities that Moho has, and ease of creation.

With Blender, even with the flattening of the textures, outlines and such, it still doesn't have the expected 2D animation that we sometimes want. Grease Pencil has come far, and I'll need to experiment with it more, still doesn't match that of Moho.

The next version of Moho could greatly improve with the ability to interchange on the fly, and I believe, would be a strong selling point to an already great program.