Is shockwave still supported in 9/9.3/9.5/9.6

Otterman

Otterman

Angry Mac User
I dont see the export option any longer. Correct me if im wrong but im guessing that shockwave is the required format for acrobat 9 is it not?
 
Hey Otterman,

I am just now starting to get into the whole shockwave 3D thing. I am running LW 9.5 and was able to export a w3D file that was able to be imported into Director 11 with no problem.

From Layout, you should be able to go to file>export>Shockwave

TOny :)
 
petterms,

I gotta say, that UNity3d is an awesome engine, the only rpoblem for me is the cost of it. That's why I myself was looking into Shockwave 3D. Have you ported to Unity from Lightwave? what's your pipeline if you don't mind me asking.

Thanks

TOny :)
 
Unity Indie: 200$
Unity Pro: 1500$
Adobe Director: 1000$

With Unity Indie being leaps and bounds better than ShockWave3D, this is a nobrainer :)

Take a look here to see what Indie is missing compared to Pro:
http://unity3d.com/unity/licenses

The main (only?) advantage ShockWave3D (Director) has over Unity is the possibility of integrating Flash.
 
Guys, not sure what you're using this for, but checkout the new interactive 3D stuff in Flash (e.g., Papervision3D). The main plus is that it'll be in Flash, so the clients won't need to install any plugin. And Flash 10 player is supposed to have hardware acceleration. You'll need Flex or Flash and some coding expertise to build it though.
 
Papervision is pretty much useless for anything more complex than a one-object viewer. It has its uses, but serious game development or "proper" interactive 3D isn't one of them.

One of its better uses I have seen is to view World of Warcraft models on thottbot.com

http://thottbot.com/?i=9114
(under the picture)
 
petterms said:
That was the type of things I had in mind. They are really nice technical feats but cant be used for serious 3D visualisation or current generation web games:

http://www.illustrata.no/3d/offshore/

http://blurst.com/raptor-safari/play
Click to expand...

My point was to keep an eye on Flash 3D because it's going to be big. It's developing really fast and the limits are being tested every day. Check out the NT thread for some web examples, including http://ecodazoo.com/ which won the FWA site of the year award last year.

I need to repeat once again that a huge plus for Flash is that folks don't need to install any plugin. E.g., I couldn't open either of your links above because (1) my browser Chrome isn't supported and (2) I don't have the plugin installed. This is vs. 98% penetration for Flash.

I do remember seeing Unity3D demo some time back (I think the scene with vines and stuff) and was absolutely STUNNED at the quality. No comparison whatsoever, but again, it's the problem of having to install the plugin.
 
Yes, I'll definitely keep an eye on it :)

I have heard about the issues with Chrome and Unity, but that will hopefully be fixed soon. I am also waiting for a Mac version of Chrome alongside security fixes.
 
petterms said:
Unity Indie: 200$
Unity Pro: 1500$
Adobe Director: 1000$

With Unity Indie being leaps and bounds better than ShockWave3D, this is a nobrainer :)

Take a look here to see what Indie is missing compared to Pro:
http://unity3d.com/unity/licenses

The main (only?) advantage ShockWave3D (Director) has over Unity is the possibility of integrating Flash.
Click to expand...

how about the massive, completely unmatched market penetration that shockwave enjoys?
 
chris-eepor said:
how about the massive, completely unmatched market penetration that shockwave enjoys?
Click to expand...

That is a good pro-argument for Director and ShockWave, but also one of the few it has (Flash embedding is another pro-Director/ShockWave argument). I yet have to see any good direction and development for Director though, and right now it looks like a dead horse with Director 11 being in a worse state than 8.5-10 ever was (workflow/GUI especially). Even upgrading the ShockWave player to the latest version is more of a hassle than to install the Unity plugin from scratch. Also, none of the old Havok based content work on Intel Mac's and never will.

But as you said, the installbase of ShockWave is larger than that of Unity or any other web 3D technology, and as such ShockWave could be preferrable over Unity in some cases. (Edit: edited "would" to "could" as I dont know what situations it "would" be :) )
 
Last edited:
There is yet another reason to choose the Director/shockwave route.

We are currently using it for one simple reason. It was very easy to find programmers that knew the ins and outs of the Lingo language and Director.

I'll post the finished project once we are done. I'll just say it includes over 100 totally different and configurable 3d interactive rooms.
 
hey petter, thinking of jumping ship :D

Will still keep the options for director on the go, but jump on msn on skype when u get the change

(sorry for hijacking thread lol)

M
 
Shockwave export issues

Hey guys,

I am working on creating a walk through for a client but I seem to be having the same recurring problems when exporting to Shockwave.

1.) My images for my skybox seem to be blurry but when they are imported into LW they are in focus. I have been able to turn off the compression feature in Director 11.5 and that has helped somewhat but the logo and the trees (which are part of the same skybackground) are blurry.

2.) Even though I have fog turned off in LW, it still shows up.

3.) I can still see a seam in the skybox, now I haven't ruled out that maybe my UV vertices are not completely inside the UV constraints I'll have to check that out later, but seeing the image in LW's OpenGL I don't see a seam.

I've attached an image; I have a couple of arrows depicting what I am talking about and inbetween those arrows you can see the image seam in the sky background.

I am also using .TIF files instead of .JPG or .PNG

Any help would be greatfully appreciated.

Tony :)
 

Attachments

  • JumperWalk6-ScreenGrabFog.jpg
    JumperWalk6-ScreenGrabFog.jpg
    126.1 KB · Views: 343
Export settings in lightwave give you a choice to limit the size of the images when exporting, make shure that is off. I find problems when exporting images larger than 1024x1024, so what I do when I need more rez is to split the panorama in two images so that each is 1024.

The fog setting is also something you can turn off while exporting, and once in director too. I am not so sure it's fog that is giving you that particular shading tho.. remember you have no shadows in director, so things under other things can appear bright unless you bake everythng first, which is what I do. Those arches where you enter your castle looking thing just beg for some baking because it's hard to make out the exact shape without shadows.

Looking at your image I see that you skimped on polygons quite a bit on the cans, polygons don't affect shockwave performance much unless you really go nuts. So up the polycount on those, polygons don't stress modern computers much and take up very little bandwith. Tiff images on the other hand..
 
@Danner

Very cool, good info!

The reason I was using .Tif images was because of the alpha channel but I can also use .PNG as well right? or will DI not see the alpha channel?

Can you point me in the direction of some good literature with regards for LW users and DI 11.5? or DI in general?

Thanks

Tony :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top