Maxon CInema 4D 10.5, sjeesh, these guys are on a roll or what? [Archive]

RedBull

10-02-2007, 05:27 PM

Yeah i don't like C4D overall, and i could never Model in it...

However some of the tools, plugins and scripts that C4D has are great.
DWG import well i don't use it, but obviously it's an important format for ArchViz
And NT should of added it after LWCAD was a such a hit.

It's amazing little upgrade for a point release for Maxon. Seems like the NT from old, where every point release was packed with useful goodies.....

Another SSS Node anyone? ;)

Sande

10-02-2007, 05:47 PM

Seems like the NT from old, where every point release was packed with useful goodies.....

Another SSS Node anyone? ;)
Well, LightWave 8 anyone? 8.5? What old NT do you mean? ;)
I've been quite happy with recent point updates, but expectations may differ...

ghostlight

10-02-2007, 06:08 PM

Anybody use BodyPaint with Lightwave? UV maps scare me....

Captain Obvious

10-02-2007, 06:08 PM

What surprised me is the fact that it didn't actually get the ability to keep assets outside the main scene file until now. Lightwave's had it all along (the LWO/LWS separation basically means that all LWOs in a scene are "xrefs"). True, you can't actually reference scene data into another LW scene, but still. That C4D was unable to keep anything out of the main scene file until now surprised me somewhat.

Also, C4D seems really promising. Vray and finalRender, Maxwell and Fryrender! Now all it needs is Kray and FPrime! ;)

Matt

10-02-2007, 06:33 PM

Have to say C4D interface is very snappy to work with, and they have some great workflow features, but I still can't get along with the way it generally works.

The next major revision of LW REALLY does need to step on the gas though, to really catch up and stand out the following need to be addressed. For me, these are the areas of LW that have not been touched in a long while:

- Old legacy code needs to be gone, no more excuses - so we can add big jumps in functionality like drag and drop, context sensitive popups over items etc. (Most of this would mean a complete update to the UI code too)

- Complete overhaul in terms of consistency between the apps (if they are still separate)

- Complete overhaul of UV mapping tools

- Full snapping on ALL Modeler tools at least, would be useful in Layout too

- Instancing

- Totally overhauled lighting

- Faster, more robust dynamics

- Much improved HyperVoxels

- Totally re-worked CA tools

- FULL support for popular 'defacto' file formats

I can't help but fear the gap will be too great to catch up without causing permanent damage to LWs reputation against the strong competition.

Just my honest viewpoint (as a LW user).

lardbros

10-02-2007, 06:37 PM

Have to say C4D interface is very snappy to work with, and they have some great workflow features, but I still can't get along with the way it generally works.

The next major revision of LW REALLY does need to step on the gas though, to really catch up and stand out the following need to be addressed. For me, these are the areas of LW that have not been touched in a long while:

- Old legacy code needs to be gone, no more excuses - so we can add big jumps in functionality like drag and drop, context sensitive popups over items etc. (Most of this would mean a complete update to the UI code too)

- Complete overhaul in terms of consistency between the apps (if they are still separate)

- Full snapping on ALL Modeler tools at least, would be useful in Layout too

- Instancing

- Totally overhauled lighting

- Faster, more robust dynamics

- Much improved HyperVoxels

- Totally re-worked CA tools

- FULL support for popular 'defacto' file formats

I can't help but fear the gap will be too great to catch up without causing permanent damage to LWs reputation against the strong competition.

Just my honest viewpoint (as a LW user).

COMPLETELY AGREED!! Newtek and the LW dev people will probably read this and think "What an ungrateful bunch of... *********"

But, we only have LW's best interests at heart! We enjoy using the software, but it has to fix these areas sooner rather than later to keep up. Modo is on version 3 already for crying out loud!!

prospector

10-02-2007, 06:51 PM

Icons........:thumbsdow :oye: :tsktsk: :censored:

Matt

10-02-2007, 06:58 PM

Newtek and the LW dev people will probably read this and think "What an ungrateful bunch of... *********"

But, we only have LW's best interests at heart!

Exactly right, when people (including myself) feel the need to say this stuff, I really hope NT aren't thinking we don't appreciate the effort gone into the 9.x cycle, clearly MASSIVE strides have been taken, but I just can't shake the deep down feeling of needing to see something that makes me go "WOW, I can't believe they've added/updated X feature"

I also just can't help the feeling that we're still adding / working around legacy code. To make me REALLY believe we're past that point will be when NT can proudly announce, for example, "the old UV mapping has gone, poof, completely, and in it's place a brand spanking new, totally up to date with hot off the press modern concepts / algorithms UV mapping engine that blows everything out of the water!"

Or, "hey guys, here's an entirely sleek new lighting system that looks and behaves like real world lights, however all your old scenes won't render the same anymore in the new system, but, tough luck, we're moving on! You wanted progress, you got it, you're gonna have to move with the times and take the punches!"

It's THAT kind of step change users are yearning for, I sense that this is the mood with a LOT of users.

Matt

10-02-2007, 06:58 PM

Icons........:thumbsdow :oye: :tsktsk: :censored:

Yes, no icons, that's ONE thing LW does BETTER than anyone else!

KevinL

10-02-2007, 07:38 PM

Death to Icons
[disclaimer] except where OS, Photoshop, premiere, etc are concerned. In lightwave I like my text!

alvin_cgi

10-02-2007, 08:12 PM

You can change icon to text in C4D, very handy... can you change text to icon in LW, I guess not!

adamredwoods

10-02-2007, 09:15 PM

C4D was lacking in character animation, but now it seems it's caught up.
http://www.maxon.de/pages/products/modules/mocca/deformer_e.html

I've used C4D in production before, it's real nice.

Hm, I will look closer at this, and compare packages when LW gets to v10.

prospector

10-03-2007, 12:46 AM

You can change icon to text in C4D, very handy.
Which means they have 2 GUI setups?

Bloatware :D

lardbros

10-03-2007, 03:09 AM

Exactly right, when people (including myself) feel the need to say this stuff, I really hope NT aren't thinking we don't appreciate .......

Or, "hey guys, here's an entirely sleek new lighting system that looks and behaves like real world lights, however all your old scenes won't render the same anymore in the new system, but, tough luck, we're moving on! You wanted progress, you got it, you're gonna have to move with the times and take the punches!"

Again, that's exactly what Im meaning. So far we have seen Nodes, which are absolutely stunning. BUT, i am disappointed with the way speed enhancements have been brought in with Sigma II and the other one. Is that the only way we can now get speed increases? By stopping the effect in reflections etc.? Yes it speeds it up, but I'd rather a speed increase with the whole shebang. Maybe it is the area lights/lighting system which is causing the major issues, but all i want from Newtek is a statment telling us which things NEED to be changed in order for us to see the biggest speed hikes.

I don't care when they happen (obviously sooner than later is best), but simply knowing what bits are to change will help me see what's going on.

I guess a lighting system that takes the new radiosity into account somehow will help.

As i have said before, and many times in the past, Newtek have a MASSIVE job at hand; it would have probably been simpler for THEM to start from scratch, (we may have never seen them again?!) but these point releases need to show me something truly major.

New lights and lighting system, and the rest of the list by Matt.

I do still feel although they are bolting things onto old code, despite being reassured by Chuck. Im sure they aren't doing that, it would be a complete waste of time.

Anyway, hopefully by version 10, we will be seeing a COMPLETELY new beast. We won't even recognise the power and simplicity of the interface. :thumbsup:

3DGFXStudios

10-03-2007, 04:20 AM

not impressed, but the dragable sliders are cool. Lightwave needs better sliders!
I figured out that if you zoom out 2km you sliders get all messed up! Not cool!

zardoz

10-03-2007, 06:14 AM

MentalFish

10-03-2007, 06:17 AM

I really like how the interface is customizable in C4D, but due to experience I work much faster in LW and I like the LW renderer better. Also the W3D exporter in C4D does some weird stuff to the geometry.

Not wanting icons is fine, having the option to choose what to have is better.

wavk

10-03-2007, 06:34 AM

agree but this will sadly not being done in a short time (which is needed.)
so.... hmmmm...

mlon

Have to say C4D interface is very snappy to work with, and they have some great workflow features, but I still can't get along with the way it generally works.

The next major revision of LW REALLY does need to step on the gas though, to really catch up and stand out the following need to be addressed. For me, these are the areas of LW that have not been touched in a long while:

- Old legacy code needs to be gone, no more excuses - so we can add big jumps in functionality like drag and drop, context sensitive popups over items etc. (Most of this would mean a complete update to the UI code too)

- Complete overhaul in terms of consistency between the apps (if they are still separate)

- Complete overhaul of UV mapping tools

- Full snapping on ALL Modeler tools at least, would be useful in Layout too

- Instancing

- Totally overhauled lighting

- Faster, more robust dynamics

- Much improved HyperVoxels

- Totally re-worked CA tools

- FULL support for popular 'defacto' file formats

I can't help but fear the gap will be too great to catch up without causing permanent damage to LWs reputation against the strong competition.

Just my honest viewpoint (as a LW user).

Iain

10-03-2007, 06:56 AM

C4D has been a great app for a long time.
It's main drawback has been the misleading pricing structure in that the basic version was missing the most important parts (e.g. decent rendering.)

That's why I'm always annoyed when it's put side by side with LW for features and value for money.

Matt

10-03-2007, 08:06 AM

This is true, C4D Studio (most similar to LW in terms of features) costs £2290.08

Whereas LW costs £607.48 (and that's the Aminate and Edit SpeedEdit bundle!) Could find LW on it's own at OneVideo.com

Anyway, a difference of £1682.60, and that's a LOT!

In fact, for the price of C4D, you could buy LW 3.769803131 times! :D

Andyjaggy

10-03-2007, 09:57 AM

[B]I also just can't help the feeling that we're still adding / working around legacy code. To make me REALLY believe we're past that point will be when NT can proudly announce, for example, "the old UV mapping has gone, poof, completely, and in it's place a brand spanking new, totally up to date with hot off the press modern concepts / algorithms UV mapping engine that blows everything out of the water!"

Or, "hey guys, here's an entirely sleek new lighting system that looks and behaves like real world lights, however all your old scenes won't render the same anymore in the new system, but, tough luck, we're moving on! You wanted progress, you got it, you're gonna have to move with the times and take the punches!"

Oh yes. It's been so quiet lately, not a peep from anyone at Newtek, that I keep hoping one day I will log on to the forum and see a post in the OB thread saying "Hey look what we did :D" and it will be something awesome and cool.

Darth Mole

10-03-2007, 10:55 AM

C4D is really nice, but for me the big difference is simple:

If you want to build a beautiful looking curved surface black-and-chrome gadget, C4D is perfect.

If you want to build a scale replica of the Valley Forge, LW kicks its arse all over the shop.

Don't get me wrong: you CAN build complicated objects in C4D, but you'll do it far quicker and with less grey hairs in LW.

ingo

10-03-2007, 11:58 AM

......Don't get me wrong: you CAN build complicated objects in C4D, but you'll do it far quicker and with less grey hairs in LW.

oh so true since LW has no hair plugin, so actually you have to say "without grey hairs in LW". ;)

Matt

10-03-2007, 01:05 PM

If you want to build a scale replica of the Valley Forge, LW kicks its arse all over the shop.

Don't get me wrong: you CAN build complicated objects in C4D, but you'll do it far quicker and with less grey hairs in LW.

This is the thing, I'm pretty quick in LW these days, I know certain parts reasonably well, so no matter how many wonderful enhancements other packages may produce, I'll still be quicker in LW, but that's not to say I wouldn't welcome big enhancements.

Workarounds aside, for ME the thing that makes LightWave awesome is its ability to rough out a scene quickly, it's simple things like being able to look _through_ a light to see where it's pointing while setting it up make it very quick.

Red_Oddity

10-03-2007, 03:02 PM

they talk about xrefs....isn't that what LW uses? I mean...we can have a 'Master scene' with links to external files...hmm I guess LW as been like that since I can remember...whatever.

Yeah, they are not really clear on this one, whether it's a Maya style referencing system (as in reference whatever you want, from scenes to setups to whatnot) or whether it is referencing as in LWO in LWS files.

Captain Obvious

10-03-2007, 06:38 PM

Or, "hey guys, here's an entirely sleek new lighting system that looks and behaves like real world lights, however all your old scenes won't render the same anymore in the new system, but, tough luck, we're moving on! You wanted progress, you got it, you're gonna have to move with the times and take the punches!"

It's THAT kind of step change users are yearning for, I sense that this is the mood with a LOT of users.
See, that's exactly what I want as well. A good example of NewTek doing the complete opposite is the whole "scene editor" mess. Lightwave had the scene editor, but they wanted to upgrade it. So they bought a third party one, kept the old one but renamed it "classic scene editor."

Okay, how about this instead? SCRAP THE OLD STUFF! I don't care about backwards compatibility. If I've got a scene set up for Lightwave 5.6 and I need to re-render it, I can bloody well load it up in LW 5.6! It doesn't have to work in LW9.

lardbros

10-04-2007, 02:04 AM

See, that's exactly what I want as well. A good example of NewTek doing the complete opposite is the whole "scene editor" mess. Lightwave had the scene editor, but they wanted to upgrade it. So they bought a third party one, kept the old one but renamed it "classic scene editor."

Okay, how about this instead? SCRAP THE OLD STUFF! I don't care about backwards compatibility. If I've got a scene set up for Lightwave 5.6 and I need to re-render it, I can bloody well load it up in LW 5.6! It doesn't have to work in LW9.

Yep, im voting for this too... Newtek for years have cared far too much about backward compatibility with older LW versions. Well until 9.2 was it? Maybe this was the beginning?

Sande

10-04-2007, 02:59 AM

Well, scene editor was probably the worst possible example - I use both editors and I wouldn't like to work without the other.

Other than that, I'm all for the new features but I get a feeling that people again just assume things, like "NewTek caring too much about backward compatibility" and that hurting the development. There's not much doubt that the development previously wasn't what it should have been, but my (humble and personal) assumption is that it had more to do with those behind that 4-letter-app and their own projects, than just caring for LightWave's backward compatibility...

Captain Obvious

10-04-2007, 07:06 AM

Well, scene editor was probably the worst possible example - I use both editors and I wouldn't like to work without the other.
Wouldn't you rather have ONE scene editor that has all the functionality you need, instead of three that cover about half each, with loads of overlapping?

Matt

10-04-2007, 07:33 AM

Wouldn't you rather have ONE scene editor that has all the functionality you need, instead of three that cover about half each, with loads of overlapping?

I started working on an all-in-one version of Scene Editor / Dope Sheet, they ALMOST do the same thing, merging them seems quite logical to me.

Not got very far yet though!

stevecullum

10-04-2007, 07:37 AM

I'm with this as well. Screw the old crap, rip it out, stomp on it and implement new shiny stuff! Who cares if old scenes won't load or render or whatever, we have old versions of LightWave for that! LightWave needs some spring cleaning. Done by next spring would suit me fine

Yep, I completely agree too. Infact I would have prefrered the whole 9 series to be fresh code and two fingers to backwards compatibility, but sadly not everyone shares the same way of thinking - including the people that could have made it happen.

If NT had done this, by now we might have been getting somewhere...

Sande

10-04-2007, 07:40 AM

Wouldn't you rather have ONE scene editor that has all the functionality you need, instead of three that cover about half each, with loads of overlapping?
Of course. But that didn't happen, did it? If they had scrapped the classic editor then, how do you think that things would be different now?

cresshead

10-04-2007, 01:30 PM

yup scrap the old and bring in the new modules they were talking about for lightwave.

re cinema it's too expensive for a 2nd rate 3d app....i't's not used on large production and look's 'lame' compared to the chaper maya complete for example.
they keep trying but they'll not get my vote till the ditch the underhanded pricing scheme which breaks all your modules/plugins when it get updated and you HVE to upgrade your modules [costs..] to get them running again...dumb idea.

Dodgy

10-04-2007, 02:33 PM

If NT had done this, by now we might have been getting somewhere...

No, we would still be at version 8.... No nodes, no faster radiosity, no opengl improvements, no bug fixes... How long did it take other packages to get sorted? Modo's had longer, but you're only just able to animate a bit in it.

stevecullum

10-04-2007, 02:41 PM

I didn't mean to start completely from scratch, but more redevelop the code without the concerns of making it work with previous versions. This surely has had an impact on development time?

Of course a new interface etc.. might take a while, but they could have kept the good bits of existing LW and ditched the rest. (I am assuming that there would have been enough good bits to stay within a reasonable time frame!)

Dodgy

10-04-2007, 03:47 PM

I dunno, there's a lot fo LW that does work reasonably well. It just must be a nightmare sorting out which is good and which is bad...

Sande

10-04-2007, 04:00 PM

Regarding these rewrite issues, here is an quote from an old CG Focus interview (http://www.cgfocus.com/article/story/312) with Jay Roth:

Q: "While many have called for a "fresh start" that involves rewriting the application from scratch, NewTek has stated that it is taking a progressive "stage-at-a-time" approach to redesigning LightWave from the ground up. Why does NewTek feel this can work? What are the benefits to using this approach?"

A: "This is called a "parallel changeover" in the development world, and is often considered the best approach to take when you have an actively used product in the marketplace. If we were to have followed what others have done (max, wavefront->Maya, xsi), we would go dark for a long period of time, forcing users to wait years for the results. We do not view that approach as practical, given market conditions, and the fact that our customers have been very loyal to us. So, by using the parallel changeover model, we can make available new technologies earlier in the process, far earlier than they would have been with any other approach."

I personally agree with his view 100%. What comes to backwards compatibility - yeah, sacrifices may sometimes have to be made, but why ditch all the backwards compatibility if there's no harm in keeping it or benefit in breaking it? Just to keep a few uncertain users on a forum satisfied? :)
I think these guys (and gals) at NewTek are smart enough to know themselves when to leave out some legacy support or when to break compatibility with previous versions. Well, that's my guess anyhow... :)

Anti-Distinctly

10-04-2007, 04:23 PM

Personally, I'm not too concerned with backwards compatability, but I'm also not sure if this is really hindering LW development. Not being inside NT, it's quite difficult to tell.

Dodgy

10-04-2007, 04:51 PM

The trick is updating the bits which everyone does need, while removing the bits that people don't, the bloatware...

RedBull

10-04-2007, 05:01 PM

While nobody wants legacy code, NT did try a massively unsuccessful rewrite with 6.0, and it cost NT a lot of credibility, there is no way NT could of done this again. And retained it's user base with the other options available.
But the problem is I'm finding Lscripts and older plugins are breaking quite badly anyway and every new update sees a new script gone. It's a matter of damned if you do, or damned if i don't for NT.
For large studio's to be told that all of there investment is no longer useful in LW, obviously doesn't go down to well, if you want them as a repeat customer. So it's easy to say no more legacy, but in reality it needed to be done this way for NT.

Captain Obvious

10-04-2007, 05:21 PM

For large studio's to be told that all of there investment is no longer useful in LW, obviously doesn't go down to well, if you want them as a repeat customer.
Well yeah, but large studios often employ tons of work-arounds for problems with Lightwave that exists partially because of legacy code. I guess we do, for example. If NewTek released a new version that broke everything (but was still able to load LWOs and LWSs, of course), but fixed some of the major issues it's having at the moment, we'd upgrade to it in a heartbeat and never look back.

Even if FPrime suddenly stopped working, I can't imagine Worley taking very long to take advantage of an SDK that actually lets him do all he wants to do with it...

Aegis

10-06-2007, 04:07 PM

While nobody wants legacy code, NT did try a massively unsuccessful rewrite with 6.0, and it cost NT a lot of credibility

I think your doing NewTek (and the original devs) a bit of a disservice there - OK, LW6.0 was flaky as hell but it brought a lot of impressive new functionality with it and 6.5 fixed a heckuva lot of issues - I probably did more work with 6.5 than any other release of LW and it was always a pleasure to use :)

AbnRanger

10-08-2007, 04:13 AM

oh so true since LW has no hair plugin, so actually you have to say "without grey hairs in LW". ;)And without instancing, Valley Forge would have undergone some heavy de-forrestation (maybe you could blame Wal-Mart for that :D ) in LW.
No wonder it would be done much faster!

AbnRanger

10-08-2007, 04:33 AM

yup scrap the old and bring in the new modules they were talking about for lightwave.

re cinema it's too expensive for a 2nd rate 3d app....i't's not used on large production and look's 'lame' compared to the chaper maya complete for example.
It's obvious that the Studio version is priced to be in direct competition with 3ds Max. And it has alot more tools than Maya complete.
As of R10, it looks like a pretty tempting alternative, especially since it comes with BodyPaint integrated, an Interactive Renderer, enhanced OpenGL, Thinking Particles w/Pyrocluster volumetric effects, etc.
Plus that MoGraph module looks like a real time saver for anyone doing alot of 3D motion graphics.

It costs more than LW because it simply offers more.

Elmar Moelzer

10-08-2007, 02:12 PM

Well, from what I have seen Pyrocluster still looks inferior to HVs, might have changed lately though. From what I heard though the guys at Cebas and Maxon are not quite that friendly anymore so I doubt that anything they did for Cinema has seen big updates recently.
CU
Elmar

animotion

10-10-2007, 10:08 AM

Iain

10-10-2007, 11:25 AM

I can't believe NewTek is allowing you to advertise competitive products like that. I know, I know, its just to illustrate that we need better ca tools and the like, but still.

I think that pretty much all of those C4D renders look very flat and lifeless.

I think we should all keep up to date on what's happening in other applications so that we don't make foolish statements about LW still being best at something when it's not, or vice versa.

I saw people making similar posts about LW 9.2 on other boards and nobody took the hump. People were genuinely interested.

C4D can produce amazing renders in the right hands, just like anything else.

animotion

10-10-2007, 11:32 AM

Isn't the renders on it's own ad web page the right hands?

LW does need some LONG overdue refinement, but some times it seems a little bold and disrespectful to NewTek at times here.

Just my observation.

animotion

10-10-2007, 12:39 PM

Here is part of the moderation policy.

"The NewTek Discussion Forums are a private venue provided as a service to NewTek customers at NewTek's discretion. As such, the NewTek Discussion Forums are not a free speech zone, they are for professional and civil discourse regarding NewTek products by NewTek users.

The following items are not considered professional or civil discourse allowed on these forums:
Off-topic and controversial subjects such as Religion and Politics
Comments of an "off color" nature inappropriate for viewing by minors
Non-constructive criticism of a malicious nature
Personal attacks against NewTek customers or employees and their family members
Promotional messages and material for competing products"

I want the best for LW but rules are rules.

Iain

10-10-2007, 12:42 PM

animotion

10-10-2007, 01:08 PM

I Like that one! good comeback.

Iain

10-10-2007, 01:57 PM

I think the moderators here are pretty switched on. They know we are adults and unless someone is offensive they let us talk about whatever we find interesting.

This isn't someone saying that "C4D is better than LW so buy it", just pointing out that Maxon are also on a big development push.

archijam

10-10-2007, 02:20 PM

Lawd knows LW could learn from the C4D Marketing strategy, industrial partnerships (see unity3d.com) and website design (front page showreel anyone?) ...

LW rocks, but we should aim for it to rock long and strong into the distant future ... ;)

j.

Matt

10-10-2007, 06:29 PM

I think letting these type of threads run for a while actually help NT gleen some feedback about their own customer satisfaction / wants / needs etc. Even when discussing another app.

NT mods are without doubt the most trusting of their users, just so long as it doesn't turn into a circus.

Apple have to be the worst, I posted a genuine problem with my iPod once hoping to get some help, it was taken down within hours!

Captain Obvious

10-10-2007, 07:51 PM

I think that pretty much all of those C4D renders look very flat and lifeless.
Making a render look anything but flat and lifeless is up to the artist, not the renderer. This is equally true with any renderer out there. That said, I'm not a big fan of the C4D renderer. Of course, I haven't actually used it for about two years now.

animotion

10-10-2007, 08:48 PM

I think that we all know that by now,
but you would think that the manufacturer would put their best foot foreword to sell the product.

Anyway, carry on and see ya!

zardoz

10-11-2007, 03:50 AM

I don't know how these threads start about what is the best software...of course I would love to have in LW some of the stuff I've seen in 3dmax, xsi, maya, etc, but I'm the only person working with LW in a studio with 10 or more people working with max and all of them would love to have some of the things we have in LW.

After what I've seen come out of PovRay or Blender (free software) I can say that I only care about the artist and not the software.

I think that some threads like the ones in cgtalk started by RobertoOrtiz
(http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthread.php?f=5&t=184308) are usefull and it's not about the others being better...it's about other softs having stuff that would be usefull for us. But you can be pretty sure we have lots, and lots of stuff other softs would love to have.

It's good to invent new original stuff, but we don't have to invent the weel again. If others have done it already, why can't we use it too?

Cageman

10-11-2007, 06:40 AM

I can't believe NewTek is allowing you to advertise competitive products like that. I know, I know, its just to illustrate that we need better ca tools and the like, but still.

NT:s tolerance in this is probably one of the reasons people visit this place. In this case I don't see the original post as "Hey go buy Cinema", but a nice peak into what that package has today. I think the original poster want two things:

1. Make NT aware of what the competition is doing
2. Showing a great idea that would be nice to have in LightWave