PDA

View Full Version : Multiple Windows in Layout



Stephen0523
08-20-2009, 04:36 AM
Hi. Is it possible to have more than one scene open at a time in Layout?

Lightwolf
08-20-2009, 04:56 AM
No... but you can run multiple instances of Layout (easily on Windows, it requires a bit of a workaround on OS X).

Cheers,
Mike

Stephen0523
08-20-2009, 05:00 AM
Thanks, what is is the workaround on Mac, as I am on a Mac Pro.

Lightwolf
08-20-2009, 05:03 AM
Thanks, what is is the workaround on Mac, as I am on a Mac Pro.
Duplicate Layout.app (leave it in the same directory, but give it a new name, of course). If you're using the UB.
If not, duplicate the CFM executable.

It's basically a limitation of OS X itself (or probably more correct: the Finder). But if you duplicate the app then OS X will assume that you're launching a different app.

Cheers,
Mike

Stephen0523
08-20-2009, 06:04 AM
Ouch, maybe Newtek will support multiple windows and preview icons of the file in future updates.

Lightwolf
08-20-2009, 06:05 AM
Ouch, maybe Newtek will support multiple windows and preview icons of the file in future updates.
Do you want multiple windows or multiple scenes?
And, what should the preview icon display?

Cheers,
Mike

toby
08-20-2009, 03:13 PM
It's basically a limitation of OS X itself (or probably more correct: the Finder).
I know you think that anything that diverges from Windows methodology is a limitation, but I'm pretty sure it's designed to keep you from starting a new app when you're using an icon to switch back to the one that's already running. Starting a second app would be an easy mistake to make since osx doesn't require a window to be open for an app to stay running (Windows limitation?).

Lightwolf
08-20-2009, 03:26 PM
I know you think that anything that diverges from Windows methodology is a limitation, but I'm pretty sure it's designed to keep you from starting a new app when you're using an icon to switch back to the one that's already running. Starting a second app would be an easy mistake to make since osx doesn't require a window to be open for an app to stay running (Windows limitation?).
It is a limitation because it is just about the only desktop that enforces this for all applications (others allow apps to decide how they'd like to run). In this sense OS X is the odd one out (remember, we discussed this before...).
Of course it is by design, but that only makes it a limitation by design and choice, it's still a limitation.

Cheers,
Mike

P.S. Windows doesn't require an app to have a window open either.

toby
08-20-2009, 04:20 PM
Maybe it's the 'odd one out' in a good way. Being odd is not inherently a disadvantage.
I'm not trying to piss you off, I just think you're letting your personal opinion cloud your logic, judging by the way exaggerate the ills and ignore the benefits of osx.

Lightwolf
08-20-2009, 04:55 PM
Maybe it's the 'odd one out' in a good way. Being odd is not inherently a disadvantage.
I'm not trying to piss you off, I just think you're letting your personal opinion cloud your logic, judging by the way exaggerate the ills and ignore the benefits of osx.
Look again, there is no qualitative statement made by me here.
It is a limitation and we both agree on that.

If I were to say that a one button mouse is a limitation, would you have a go at me for saying that as well?

As for my personal opinion: OSX is an OS just like any other: it's grand in some ways and it sucks in others.

Do I understand the design decision in this case? Of course. Do I still think it is limiting: Yes - as we see here, there's cases when it clearly is. And if it's not LW then it's another app. In a perfect world it wouldn't be - but even Apple land apparently isn't perfect ;)

Cheers,
Mike - off to download a security update from Apple ;)

toby
08-20-2009, 06:51 PM
Look again, there is no qualitative statement made by me here.
It is a limitation and we both agree on that.

If I were to say that a one button mouse is a limitation, would you have a go at me for saying that as well?I think we have a difference of understanding of the term "limitation". As far as I know it means something that's beyond the limit of one's ability, or something you try to do but can't, not a limit of what one chooses to do. Not a literal definition of the word, just the way it's used. In that sense I don't agree that it's a limitation, more like a "protection", like blocking a malicious website, which doesn't mean that there's a limitation on your web browser.


As for my personal opinion: OSX is an OS just like any other: it's grand in some ways and it sucks in others.
yes I remember your stated opinion, it's your unstated opinion I'm talking about. By your statement you'd think that you'd jump to point out and exaggerate problems on both platforms, but you don't do that with Windows, only Osx.


Do I understand the design decision in this case? Of course. Do I still think it is limiting: Yes - as we see here, there's cases when it clearly is.
You're looking at it the wrong way - running 2 duplicates of an app is a 'hack', trying to do something the os wasn't designed for, so you have to go through the "workaround" of pressing cntrl-d on the icon. You just don't look at it that way because of your experience with Windows. I just wish you were willing to look at things a different way, but no, I'm not holding my breath.



And if it's not LW then it's another app. In a perfect world it wouldn't be - but even Apple land apparently isn't perfect ;)

Cheers,
Mike - off to download a security update from Apple ;)
I never thought it was perfect, so implying that I do is a dishonest exaggeration.

Lightwolf
08-21-2009, 02:34 AM
I think we have a difference of understanding of the term "limitation". As far as I know it means something that's beyond the limit of one's ability, or something you try to do but can't, not a limit of what one chooses to do. Not a literal definition of the word, just the way it's used. In that sense I don't agree that it's a limitation, more like a "protection", like blocking a malicious website, which doesn't mean that there's a limitation on your web browser.
O.k., so you're blaming me for not following your definition of a limitation? Or for seeing a limitation where you don't?

yes I remember your stated opinion, it's your unstated opinion I'm talking about. By your statement you'd think that you'd jump to point out and exaggerate problems on both platforms, but you don't do that with Windows, only Osx.
Thought crime?
The problems with Windows are widely known and stated, no need to jump on that bandwagon.
You also usually don't get jumped on immediately for saying that Windows has certain limitations - especially not if it's something as trivial as this.


You're looking at it the wrong way - running 2 duplicates of an app is a 'hack', trying to do something the os wasn't designed for, so you have to go through the "workaround" of pressing cntrl-d on the icon. You just don't look at it that way because of your experience with Windows. I just wish you were willing to look at things a different way, but no, I'm not holding my breath.
But it isn't, it is a limitation of what the Finder allows the user to do, full stop. The OS can handle it perfectly fine - which is precisely what it does when you duplicate an app.
And any other OS (and GUI) allows you to do that... Windows is a red herring here ;)

Let's see:
We have an OS that handles this case perfectly well.
We have a graphical shell that doesn't allow you to do it.
It's not a limitation of said graphical shell becuase it's by design.
Right... ?

I never thought it was perfect, so implying that I do is a dishonest exaggeration.
You mean it might have some, erm, limitations? ;)

Cheers,
Mike - who's now thinking about selling his two Macs because he's clearly not a devout enough user...

toby
08-21-2009, 03:31 AM
O.k., so you're blaming me for not following your definition of a limitation? Or for seeing a limitation where you don't?
No, I may have been mistaken to fault you considering that. But I'm not sure.


Thought crime?

Certainly not, I want you to think whatever you want. But I don't like to see people preaching biased exaggerations on the forums. Copying the app is far too easy to be called a "bit of a workaround" and compared to "easily" on windows.


You also usually don't get jumped on immediately for saying that Windows has certain limitations - especially not if it's something as trivial as this.
If you kept doing it year after year, and only targeted windows, you would. And if I saw someone doing that I'd be saying the same things to him.


But it isn't, it is a limitation of what the Finder allows the user to do, full stop. The OS can handle it perfectly fine - which is precisely what it does when you duplicate an app.
And any other OS (and GUI) allows you to do that... Windows is a red herring here ;)

Like I said, I've given up on thinking you might look at it from a different perspective. And *every* os does something the others don't. And again, that doesn't mean there's something wrong with it.



Cheers,
Mike - who's now thinking about selling his two Macs because he's clearly not a devout enough user...
Honestly, if you would stop jumping at every chance to pee on osx, or even if you took the same attitude with Windows, we'd have no problems. If I badmouthed Windows every other day, you know as well as I do it would start the same arguments.

Lightwolf
08-21-2009, 03:54 AM
Certainly not, I want you to think whatever you want. But I don't like to see people preaching biased exaggerations on the forums. Copying the app is far too easy to be called a "bit of a workaround" and compared to "easily" on windows.
Well, it's not obvious, as the initial post here proves. And it requires the user to do something that shouldn't need to be done in the first place (fiddle with apps and physically create a copy of them).
It certainly fits even less into the OSX design philosophy.

If you kept doing it year after year, and only targeted windows, you would. And if I saw someone doing that I'd be saying the same things to him.
Only if you were (imho) wrong ;)

Like I said, I've given up on thinking you might look at it from a different perspective. And *every* os does something the others don't. And again, that doesn't mean there's something wrong with it.
You don't know me very well it seems. Maybe I'm looking at it from too many different perspectives ;)
How about this... for a Un*x based machine, the Finder is a fairly limited interface into the system? And that's got nothing to do with Windows, but does compare to other platforms that use the same core tech.

I don't see the problem you have with me stating the obvious though. OS X is the designed around limiting the users access to the system in the first place. That's always been a part of Apples designs... and probalby is a part of any design if you look at it. The good ole "limit to the 20% that 80% of users need".

Honestly, if you would stop jumping at every chance to pee on osx, or even if you took the same attitude with Windows, we'd have no problems. If I badmouthed Windows every other day, you know as well as I do it would start the same arguments.
I consider my posts in that regard as solid criticism, not badmouthing. Note that I've never mentioned turtle-necks of the size of Steve Job's schlong... that would be badmouthing :D (darn it, now I did ;) ).
I might be wrong though - maybe any criticism is badmouthing on that side of the computing world (which still makes me wonder how stating the obvious is criticism in this case).

Cheers,
Mike - more and more puzzled now...

toby
08-21-2009, 04:52 AM
Well, it's not obvious, as the initial post here proves. And it requires the user to do something that shouldn't need to be done in the first place (fiddle with apps and physically create a copy of them).
So why did you actually go to more trouble than just saying "just duplicate the app in osx" in your first post (like everyone else has done every time this question comes up)? Why did you volunteer your concept that osx is "limited" by this, if it's "so trivial"? No one asked anything that it answers, and it served no constructive purpose. Pretty obvious you just want to make it look inferior, without it looking like it's just your opinion.


You don't know me very well it seems. Maybe I'm looking at it from too many different perspectives
How about this... for a Un*x based machine, the Finder is a fairly limited interface into the system? And that's got nothing to do with Windows, but does compare to other platforms that use the same core tech.
That's the exact same perspective.

Lightwolf
08-21-2009, 05:01 AM
So why did you actually go to more trouble than just saying "just duplicate the app in osx" in your first post (like everyone else has done every time this question comes up)? Why did you volunteer your concept that osx is "limited" by this, if it's "so trivial"? No one asked anything that it answers, and it served no constructive purpose. Pretty obvious you just want to make it look inferior, without it looking like it's just your opinion.
Wow, you read a lot between the lines.
Next time I'll refrain from posting extra information. We'll most likely see follow up posts about how dumb LW is that it requires a copy to run multiple times. :p
If answering a question that is likely to come up next isn't constructive... oh well... I'll restrict it to "search the forums" next time then.

That's the exact same perspective.
Erm, right... you mean because it comes to the same conclusion from a completely different base assumption?

Cheers,
Mike

toby
08-21-2009, 05:30 PM
Wow, you read a lot between the lines.
Next time I'll refrain from posting extra information.
Oh I see, when you exaggerated the 'difficulty' of doing it on osx, and forced the person who asked the question to ask another one, then added some useless "osx limitation" info to the answer, it's just a coincidence that you also jump to point out osx's faults in all your other posts. :rolleyes:



If answering a question that is likely to come up next isn't constructive... oh well... I'll restrict it to "search the forums" next time then.(You'll tell someone to search the forums for something they haven't asked?)
Exactly - you'll volunteer information as long as it makes osx look bad or makes windows look better, but not the other way around. It's your narrow perspective (windows only) that leads you to assume that the next question will require an answer that will demonstrate to the world how inferior osx is.



Erm, right... you mean because it comes to the same conclusion from a completely different base assumption?
All you did was exclude windows and re-re-iterated that other os's don't do it.

And Conclusion has little to do with differing Perpectives anyway, in fact Perspective assumes the same Conclusion. You should really think about developing some Perspective, it's a good thing.

Lightwolf
08-21-2009, 06:08 PM
Oh I see, when you exaggerated the 'difficulty' of doing it on osx, and forced the person who asked the question to ask another one, then added some useless "osx limitation" info to the answer, it's just a coincidence that you also jump to point out osx's faults in all your other posts. :rolleyes:
Exaggerate? Difficulty? It's what I see as an unecessary step, but hopefully not a difficult one.
As for my other posts... they're usually founded on personal experiences. Just because you haven't made them doesn't mean they don't exist.
And just because it doesn't affect you doesn't mean it's not there either.

And believe or not, there's people out there that have made the same experiences or even share some of my views... and that includes OS X "fanboys".

Exactly - you'll volunteer information as long as it makes osx look bad or makes windows look better, but not the other way around. It's your narrow perspective (windows only) that leads you to assume that the next question will require an answer that will demonstrate to the world how inferior osx is.
Sorry, but that's a load of b***** and shows how little you know of me, they way I work and the way I think.
And I don't know how often I need to repeat this, but it's not a Windows perspective just because you think it is. If there is any OS that I actually cherish dearly then it's the Amiga OS... but that's died ages ago. And that was the last time I had any emotional connection to a computer.
If there is a reason to bash Windows in this context I'm all for it - I haven't found one yet.
There's surely plenty of other use cases where it makes sense to bash it, but it seems like I'm not really affected by those (i.e. I care little for the niceties of OS X like the adress book or iCal, iTunes or the other apps that come with them because I don't need them).
Any OS is basically just an app launcher that is hopefully based on solid tech. I don't expect a lot more.

All you did was exclude windows and re-re-iterated that other os's don't do it.
Yes, so much for me just comparing everything to Windows...
Others don't... and I find it limiting if an OS dictates the way I'm supposed to work.

And Conclusion has little to do with differing Perpectives anyway, in fact Perspective assumes the same Conclusion. You should really think about developing some Perspective, it's a good thing.
You should assume a lot less, so much for advice to either of us ;)
Then again, why should I develop "different" perspectives if I'll end up at the same conclusions anyhow? *shrugs*

Cheers,
Mike

toby
08-21-2009, 09:36 PM
Exaggerate? Difficulty? It's what I see as an unecessary step, but hopefully not a difficult one.It's far simpler than typing "easily in windows, but it's a bit of a workaround in osx". Ok, so running a copy of your app, by selecting the icon and pressing cmd-d, is not easy, like it is in windows, and that's not an exaggeration... :rolleyes: I guess if you only have one finger left it might not be easy.


Sorry, but that's a load of b***** and shows how little you know of me, they way I work and the way I think.
And I don't know how often I need to repeat this, but it's not a Windows perspective just because you think it is.So you just hate osx, or think it's stupid, whatever.


I'm not really affected by those (i.e. I care little for the niceties of OS X like the adress book or iCal, iTunes or the other apps that come with them because I don't need them).
Of course, the 'only' good things about osx are the 'niceties'. :rolleyes:


Yes, so much for me just comparing everything to Windows...
Others don't... and I find it limiting if an OS dictates the way I'm supposed to work.
That's a shame, since *every* os does that.


You should assume a lot less, so much for advice to either of us ;)
Then again, why should I develop "different" perspectives if I'll end up at the same conclusions anyhow? *shrugs*

Good lord, are you serious? I never thought you were dumb, but that certainly is. Do you really not know what perspective is? Or do you just refuse to see anything about osx in a positive light?

Hieron
08-24-2009, 02:11 PM
Well, that sure explains the sheer amount of post #'s you guys have :)

As much as I love the bickering, which is a complete waste of time usually (but in some odd way quite entertaining), just wanted to say that to the outsider, the post of Lightwolf saying "limitation" made perfect sense with regard to the question of the original poster and did not feel like a stab at OSX at all.

It's a limitation that comes with the protection used, clear as day.

Quite fun to see it spiraling out of control even if it took quite a number of replies before terms as "dumb" made it to the fray. It is a quite mature forum after all :)

jwiede
08-30-2009, 06:20 AM
The real limitation here is Lightwave's: It should allow multiple documents (scenes) to be open in a single app instance, but does not. It isn't really designed for multiple instances being run at the same time, either (on Windows or OSX).

Before trying to work around the single document limitation of Lightwave, you should understand precisely how you can get in trouble doing so. In particular, think about all the "global" (per-user & per-install) files, incl. those of plugins, and how having multiple accessors will impact them, particularly files LW or plugins write "behind the scenes" without requiring explicit user permission each time.

You need to be cautious about creating situations where both instances might attempt write access to files, resulting in an instance thinking the file's contents differ from what's actually present on disk. I'd not run that way for extended periods, if you feel you must. Even though the file system will commit the writes from each instance to a given file atomically, you're running quite a risk of different files that should normally be synchronized winding up in inconsistent states, leading to problems.

Incidentally, the fact that Windows allows multiple instances of the same app to be launched so easily causes non-trivial grief inside MS COSD (Windows). Very, very few complex apps manage to avoid all the variants of resource/access collisions that arise from multiple app instances, and many of the resulting problems wind up blamed on Windows. Leaving it to the app developers to handle correctly often turns out to be asking too much.

It doesn't help that Windows' UI conventions make it difficult to differentiate between separate documents (in the same app) and separate instances. Users get really confused and upset when apps' "global" settings changes propagate across docs but don't propagate across instances. Unfortunately, fixing the problem would requires fundamental UI/Shell changes, incurring serious backwards-compatibility risks, and COSD tends to be very compatibility-risk-averse.

Lightwolf
08-30-2009, 09:37 AM
The real limitation here is Lightwave's: It should allow multiple documents (scenes) to be open in a single app instance, but does not.
Absolutely true... then again, which DCC app is? The only one I can think of is Eyeon Fusion (which still allows for multiple instances on top of that).
C4D is the closest in the 3D world, but still not there... discreet edit was afaik the closest one in the editing department.

In particular, think about all the "global" (per-user & per-install) files, incl. those of plugins, and how having multiple accessors will impact them, particularly files LW or plugins write "behind the scenes" without requiring explicit user permission each time.
You have the same potential issues running LW from a single network share, something I've been doing for years without any issues.


Incidentally, the fact that Windows allows multiple instances of the same app to be launched so easily causes non-trivial grief inside MS COSD (Windows). Very, very few complex apps manage to avoid all the variants of resource/access collisions that arise from multiple app instances, and many of the resulting problems wind up blamed on Windows. Leaving it to the app developers to handle correctly often turns out to be asking too much.
It is hard to code either way. If they can't handle it through the OS, what makes you think they can handle it within their app if it fulfills the multiple documents requirement? ;) And why are there so few apps (on any OS) that handle it properly, especially apps as complex as DCC apps?

I have to admit I prefer to have a choice as a user though... but with choice comes responsibility (example: LW texture layers vs. a connect anything to anything nodal system).


It doesn't help that Windows' UI conventions make it difficult to differentiate between separate documents (in the same app) and separate instances.
The original MDI doesn't... but apps have evolved. Then again, all modern UI conventions have their issues when it comes to actually displaying a multi-tasking system to the user. I.e. virtual desktops, exposť, task switcher... just try to work around the symptoms.

Cheers,
Mike