PDA

View Full Version : LightWave speculation thread.



Chrizto
05-29-2012, 03:15 PM
I've been away from Lightwave for some time now. I basically abandoned the whole thing during the "Harcore / Core" influence.
I am a Core member, but I never really liked the whole Core thing, so I thought "If this is what LW is going to be, I'm out!".

But now, it shows that Core wasn't the big thing after all, and we're back to the good old Modeler-Layout-Hub system in version 11!
Kinda strange, but still, for me this is the best that could happen.

What I notice when surfing to the old LW sites for plugins (TrueArt etc.) it seems as if development has stalled on version 9! No new plugins compatible with my Mac64 platform... :devil:

Also I notice that Lightwave gets very little publicity in todays 3D magazines and CG sites. This is not a good sign for me.

I really hope that Newtek now stabilizes their platform and brings some more users to this awesome product! I think it was a big failure to do development out in the open, with all the promises just to abandon the proposed product. Not very professional.

With all the competition that's in the market today, we really need something to make LW stand out. My best guess would be a lower pricing scheme to make more people choose it because of the price, then they will get hooked and recommend it to their friends and colleagues.
I mean, with software as good as Blender for free, you go figure...

I have a choice now of upgrading my commercial Modo 401 to 601 for $495 or upgrade my EDU of Lightwave 9 to commercial 11 for $695.

I don't have a lot of money, and I really am a bit unsure of the future for Lightwave because of the things mentioned above, but if Lightwave could offer me a upgrade for $299 I would have stayed with it, no questions asked! But this has become a serious dilemma for me... :eek:

Nicolas Jordan
05-29-2012, 03:42 PM
Also I notice that Lightwave gets very little publicity in todays 3D magazines and CG sites.

:stumped: I have noticed the opposite. I tend to see plenty of Lightwave advertising now especially since LW10 was released there seemed to be a noticeable surge in advertising.

mikkelen
05-29-2012, 03:48 PM
LightWave has lost ground for years, that is why the original team left Newtek and made Modo, as far as I know...

It's too bad that the software is so outdated in a lot of regards...

What I hope for is not cheaper pricing, but:

- Integrated physics system where everything interacts, like a real world physics simulator, very useful for VFX-work...

- SPEED, SPEED, SPEED - LW Modeler and the LW-HUB-LAYOUT-MODELLER pipeline is EXTREMELY SLOW on a modern Mac - when you reach 10 million polygons, it's to the point of being useless...

- NURBS - when using objects generated from other packages, it's extremely frustrating to waste memory on making huge polygon models.

- SPEED, SPEED, SPEED - LW is SLOW! (at least on OSX), but I guess Modeler is slow on Windows as well.

- Too bad that the software seems outdated at the basic level, especially with all the nice new features they are adding. Several of the new advanced features like flocking seems almost irrelevant at this point, as I would never consider LightWave for such advanced projects...

- If the robustness and speed of the package is improved, a virtual studio approach to Motion Capture would be very interesting.

Sensei
05-29-2012, 03:54 PM
What I notice when surfing to the old LW sites for plugins (TrueArt etc.) it seems as if development has stalled on version 9! No new plugins compatible with my Mac64 platform... :devil:

It's just requirement.

Actually I could make 95% of modeling tools to work with v8.5, and 50% to work with LW v6.0 (that's what I was using in 2002 to write plugins).

But v9.0 as requirement is because in that version NewTek introduced fast edge functions in SDK, simplifying making modeling tools.

Somebody with old LW is not interested in buying plugins though. He can't afford upgrade, and will invest in 3rd party plugins? I don't buy it..

Almost all mine plugins are available for Macintosh 64 bit. Only TrueLoad, VirtualRender and MatteBySurface legacy plugin were not compiled to Mac because they were using OS functions.

Chrizto
05-29-2012, 03:58 PM
:stumped: I have noticed the opposite. I tend to see plenty of Lightwave advertising now especially since LW10 was released there seemed to be a noticeable surge in advertising.

Well, I can also see the advertisements! But that's not relevant content!
I can see Newtek is trying to push LW with their commercials, but I can't see much real content, like new tutorials, interviews with LW artists etc.

If they had a seriously lower price tag to make up for the not so modern tools in Modeler, I believe they would sell more and make more.

Chrizto
05-29-2012, 04:08 PM
It's just requirement.

Actually I could make 95% of modeling tools to work with v8.5, and 50% to work with LW v6.0 (that's what I was using in 2002 to write plugins).

But v9.0 as requirement is because in that version NewTek introduced fast edge functions in SDK, simplifying making modeling tools.

Somebody with old LW is not interested in buying plugins though. He can't afford upgrade, and will invest in 3rd party plugins? I don't buy it..

Almost all mine plugins are available for Macintosh 64 bit. Only TrueLoad, VirtualRender and MatteBySurface legacy plugin were not compiled to Mac because they were using OS functions.

Ok!
I sent you an email some time ago, where you said you did not support Mac64... These are EaseMesh, EasySplit and Wrinkle.

Here is an excerpt from the mail:

> I see. But will your plugins be supported on 64bit mac? Else I have to
> run Modeler in 32-bit mode. Not what I want.

Modeler have never out of memory situations, so there is no sense using 64 bit.. It's slower than 32 bit, because of bigger memory transfers.

I tried compiling EasySpline to 64 bit, but there were errors. Other plug-ins didn't have such problem AFAIR.

So if you would care to send me the 64bit versions of these three plugins, I would be very thankful! :)

You have my mail address from earlier correspondence:
generalcody AT gmail.com

Sensei
05-29-2012, 04:09 PM
If they had a seriously lower price tag to make up for the not so modern tools in Modeler, I believe they would sell more and make more.

LOL. They just increased price in LW v11. And you want them to drop price?

Modeler in LW v9 is the same as in LW v11. That's not what you're paying for in LW v10-11- you're paying for are interactive built-in renderer, instancing, Bullet dynamics..

Sensei
05-29-2012, 04:14 PM
You can just click Get Info on Modeler icon and toggle 32 bit Mode and all plugins will work..

Chrizto
05-29-2012, 04:17 PM
Sensei!

I just sent you a mail regarding my registered plugins...
If you would be so kind as to send me the updated Mac64 compatible plugins I would be very thankful!

mikkelen
05-29-2012, 04:20 PM
Hmm, but if you are doing professional work. Paying 5 times the price of LW today is no problem, if the software is more robust and faster - and I don't have to learn a new software. Thats is worth several thousands...

erikals
05-29-2012, 04:23 PM
- SPEED, SPEED, SPEED - LW is SLOW! (at least on OSX)
yep.

...but I guess Modeler is slow on Windows as well.
yep.

more interactive tools would also be welcome.
advice, get LWCAD (http://www.wtools3d.com/)...

 

lwanmtr
05-29-2012, 08:35 PM
personally, as far as the plugin makers, I would love to see more of them support the osx version of lw...alot of good plugins, but they tend to be for windows. Even collaberating with osx plugin writers to make the conversions

geo_n
05-29-2012, 10:00 PM
If people are looking for lower price then they would probably go for blender anyway.
Low price just kills development.
Whats killing lightwave is slow to adapt. A group with a fixed number of users. Lw needs to get new users and well they(mostly using AD stuff) really don't like the split application and its limitation.
I have no doubt if layout and modeller were merged and modelling tools upgraded even modo users would consider going back.

lwanmtr
05-29-2012, 10:16 PM
Indeed, I do agree that a unified app would draw in users from the other apps....the split apps get them confused.

However, I dont see it being limiting so much and even if LW were to have a unified Layout, a separate Modeler app is still useful. There is also the advantage that I can be rendering and modeling at the same time on the same computer (btw, I dont recommend do that often on a 6 year macbook pro with 2gb ram..just an fyi..lol).

Modeler tools, though have been something that LW has been needing alot of love on...many of the useful tools are dated and break UV's. Edge tools, specially.

I dont have a problem with the price of LW, its still a good app at that price and is still less than maya, max, c4d.

bazsa73
05-29-2012, 11:08 PM
My main concern that LW is still structural.
Without being nodal Lightwave is nothing more than a pensioner on steroids. Its underlying structure should be replaced totally so every entity or node can interact with the others.
That was the idea in core but it has been abandoned.

Chrizto
05-30-2012, 06:24 AM
Wow! Good argumentation... ;-)

OnlineRender
05-30-2012, 08:48 AM
I could also mention the lack of Lightwaves abiltiy to play mp3s... or fluid simulation... or hair tools... etc...

it can play mp3's :) just dont use it for lip sync or the compression goes way off and you end up 100 frames short :)

djwaterman
05-30-2012, 09:26 AM
I actually kinda like the split app way of working, it would be cool (a fantasy) to have a unified package that has a button that allows it to morph into a modeler, or a layout, and then back into both. Anyway I've been using Maya for most of this year and have begun to appreciate the all in one workflow. There's one specific modelling tool that Maya has that LW really needs to just copy, and that's the interactive split tool. Currently we have that add edges tool that puts blue dots all over the object (without even the option of turning them off for edges facing away from the user), and it only does half the job anyway. Please if they would just copy the super intuitive interactive split tool I'd feel like it is very complete modeler. Is there any 3rd party tools that do this?

erikals
05-30-2012, 09:59 AM
i don't see the the unification as the biggest problem, but certain lacking modeler tools in Layout is creating big annoyments for sure.

Modeler needs a serious upgrade too, slow-slow...

Bandsaw > http://youtu.be/QOqO4AAW60E
Point selection > http://youtu.be/2Gb_LUJvPIM
OpenGL > skipping the video for this one, but needs a speed update

not to talk about the lack of interactive / realtime tools... :/

 

jasonwestmas
05-30-2012, 10:04 AM
Cheaper LW? Nah, price is fine, need to update the interactivity, connection between tools and offer something the other packages don't have. LW is out classed at the moment and serious users can afford the more popular tool-sets.

rcallicotte
05-30-2012, 11:46 AM
The technology in Core was not abandoned. We've even had some of it come through in 10.0 and 11.0.

I look forward to the unification.

Please give us more animation tools. :thumbsup:

JoePoe
05-30-2012, 12:19 PM
pardon the interruption....

@ djwaterman
check out TrueArt's EasySplit (http://www.trueart.eu/?URIType=Directory&URI=Products/Plug-Ins/EasySplit)
Not sure it can do the middle mouse slide point along edge thing, but still pretty intuitive and NO blue dots (well, just one :))!!
$50 :grumpy:

....Back to your normal programming.

erikals
05-30-2012, 12:28 PM
 
EasySplit it is... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okKhCZJ3J-4

 

gravin
05-30-2012, 12:28 PM
I picked up Lightwave this year after learning CG in AD apps, mostly because of pricing but also because it plays well with the other tools I've invested in (Messiah, 3dCoat). I see a lot of discussion about unifying Lightwave and I do agree that it would be a great way to improve the workflow in lightwave but I'm not sure how practical this would be from a development point of view. I would prefer Newtek spent that time optimizing the tools that are currently available and updating Modeler. Lightwave is definitely different workflow wise but it does have a lot to offer. I'd like to see the tools in Modeler more "Unified" with themselves so I don't have to pick up and drop so many different tools. For example, the drag tool should be able to move a point along its normal with a modifier key so i don't have to pick up a tool specifically for this task. Overall though Lightwave does have a lot of offer, It might not all be cutting edge but it gets the job done. I'd just hate to see it fall farther behind because impossible or impractical shifts in architecture suck up development resources. I'm new to Lightwave though so take my opinion for whats it's worth :)

MarcusM
05-30-2012, 12:50 PM
i don't see the the unification as the biggest problem, but certain lacking modeler tools in Layout is creating big annoyments for sure.

Modeler needs a serious upgrade too, slow-slow...

Bandsaw > http://youtu.be/QOqO4AAW60E
Point selection > http://youtu.be/2Gb_LUJvPIM
OpenGL > skipping the video for this one, but needs a speed update

not to talk about the lack of interactive / realtime tools... :/



We find out few months ago on forum what was the reason of slow point selection ( shift+] ) - try turn off V-sync in graphics card settings.

I had this problem and after change V-sync to always off modeler is fast like always. :)

SBowie
05-30-2012, 12:59 PM
I'd just hate to see it fall farther behind because impossible or impractical shifts in architecture suck up development resources. I'm new to Lightwave though so take my opinion for whats it's worth :)And welcome. :)

Before someone else mentions it, I'll just add that those who were members of the CORE initiative (which ended a little while ago) know that a good deal of work towards that new architecture has already been undertaken. Though it isn't visible in the current release, the advantages and advancements seen convinced many that the effort to continue along the path to integration is justifiable - not to suggest that there aren't some who feel otherwise.

erikals
05-30-2012, 01:08 PM
We find out few months ago on forum what was the reason of slow point selection ( shift+] ) - try turn off V-sync in graphics card settings.

I had this problem and after change V-sync to always off modeler is fast like always. :)

hm, still slow here... (see attachment) (even after restart)

Sensei
05-30-2012, 01:25 PM
It's again and again and again repeated issue since LW v6.0 maybe - point/edge/polygon select functions are immediately calling refreshing function. So, for 1 million polygons there will be called 1 million refreshing..
It's clearly visible while writing any plug-in which is calling these functions.

MarcusM
05-30-2012, 01:27 PM
hm, still slow here... (see attachment) (even after restart)

I check this on two ATI cards, I had hope on Nvidia will be the same results. For sure speed from movie is not normal. Restart LW? try restart pc to be sure. Its look like something force vsync.

Easy way to check this is turn on Fraps and rotate simply object in perspective window.

With turn on Vsync I have 60 fps.
With turn off Vsync more than 100fps.

Sensei
05-30-2012, 01:36 PM
erikals cropped display so much we have no idea in which viewport mode he is.. But this green color suggest it's weight shade mode. Weight shade is not using new OpenGL improvements (it's equal in speed as Flat shade or just Legacy OpenGL).

erikals
05-30-2012, 01:43 PM
yes, weight shade it was, just tried other modes, basically just as slow...

if no-one else has this problem though, i'm gonna assume it's just my PC...

probiner
05-30-2012, 01:47 PM
have you tryed to restart windows session or just modeler? Even if you change GPU settings they will only be applied the next time, if the app is already open.
I can confirm that turning off V-Sync in hy ATI card solved the issue with "Expand Selection" and alike computations.

Cheers

erikals
05-30-2012, 01:48 PM
yes, but i'm starting to believe this is a machine issue...

Sensei
05-30-2012, 02:05 PM
With such dense mesh as you showed, I have "issues" on all mine machines ;)

lwanmtr
05-30-2012, 03:53 PM
Oliver, my comment didnt say a unified app is a bad thing, in fact, I agree that having a unified app would be good....but I also like havng a seperate app.

As for running 2 or 3 Maya/Max/Etc....Think about the ram requirements...when you have 2 maya's running, you are running the full apps, with all their plugins and such running....With Layout and Modeler running, you do have the redundant processes running, which means less memory usage. So while, yes I can run 2 Maya's simultaneously, its not completely a practical solution.

mikkelen
05-30-2012, 04:39 PM
I don't understand the unified argument. I like to separate task in different programs. It makes my workflow more robust and organized. No need to have everything in one large mess...

However. LW is slow. It's incredible slow when working on big projects! This needs to be addressed FIRST! Then you can talk about integration, and other fantasies.

LW is not fast and robust enough in the current version! That is a serious problem! Serious!

For instance, as someone mentioned. Selecting polygons can sometimes take modeler minutes, until it completely crashes. I.e. if you are lucky enough to select a hundred thousand polygons in the UV-view by a wrong click. Moving a couples of hundre thousand polygons 2-3 meters takes my MacPro (8-core xeon - latest model) 10-30 seconds!!!

It's HORRIBLE!!! HORRIBLE.

First they need to make the program fast (as it was, compared to the other systems) and ROBUST!

Then fantasies!

Period.

lwanmtr
05-30-2012, 04:42 PM
the advantage of a unified app is the ability to animate some modeler tools and makes some things easier.

Indeed, the display does need to be speed alot more in Modeler. I hate crashing when i try to select something...lol

mikkelen
05-30-2012, 04:43 PM
To make myself clear. LighWave (especially modeler) is borderline useless at this point/wrecking my working hours due to it's slow speed. I could have been finished a week ago on my current project if the application was faster (just like another modern app) and robust/stable.

mikkelen
05-30-2012, 04:47 PM
"Indeed, the display does need to be speed alot more in Modeler."

I don't think it's the display, but an incredible INEFFICIENT system underneath. HORRIBLE!

"I hate crashing when i try to select something...lol"

Yes! That is a RIDICULES trait in a "professional" app!!! WHY DO NEWTEK EVEN BOTHER TO ADD NEW ADVANCED FEATURES BEFORE THEY FIX THE ABSOLUTE BASICS!!!!???!?!??!?!??!?! ****** !!!! @@@@@@@@@ ****ing hatred!

Sorry, it's just a bit frustrating.

SBowie
05-30-2012, 04:54 PM
I don't understand the unified argumentAgreed.


First they need to make the program fast (as it was, compared to the other systems) and ROBUST!Interestingly, there's another recent thread with Mac users commenting in some numbers about the greatly improved stability they've noticed. Perhaps you could pursue your problems a bit with either Support or those having better success.

erikals
05-30-2012, 04:56 PM
now Lightwave won't even be used to model spacehips anymore, too slow... :

lwanmtr
05-30-2012, 05:08 PM
Oh, yes...the Mac version is the most stable they've put out in like...ever. But I do get crashes when i select far too many polys...but that only happens when I forget to move to another layer.

Lol...I think LW will be making spaceships for a long time.

erikals
05-30-2012, 05:13 PM
small ones... http://erikalstad.com/backup/misc.php_files/cool.gif

gravin
05-30-2012, 05:14 PM
And welcome. :)

Before someone else mentions it, I'll just add that those who were members of the CORE initiative (which ended a little while ago) know that a good deal of work towards that new architecture has already been undertaken. Though it isn't visible in the current release, the advantages and advancements seen convinced many that the effort to continue along the path to integration is justifiable - not to suggest that there aren't some who feel otherwise.

Anytime :D

I think I may have been looking at the idea of unification the wrong way. I think the word unification leads one to think of just slapping the two together which sounds like it would result in a jumbled mess since the two feel very different in a lot of ways and both require a good bit of interface space (tabs, etc). I like the idea of improving the deformation system in Layout though by adding procedural modeling tools like those found in many of the other major packages out there. In fact any improvements to the deformation tools would be welcome (lattices, splines, etc). I just don't think it would be necessary or even useful to port modeler over to layout all together. A general speedup performance wise in both Modeler and Layout would go a long way as well. Better performance should always be a major focus in my opinion.

probiner
05-30-2012, 06:27 PM
I don't understand the unified argument. I like to separate task in different programs. It makes my workflow more robust and organized. No need to have everything in one large mess...

The contrary can also be said, since it's a tricky subject:


Why use 2-3 apps if you could do it in one; where you can have access to all levels of detail, information and real-time interactions?
Why model in a quad view, when most times you could do it with the same level of control in just one or two big focused viewports?
Why use 20 years of 40-50 small tools working on it's niches with lots of redundancy, when you could have 10 big ones that would share information, be called in different fashions, using different presets, and work across the whole board?
Why have Subdivision in one place, Bones Deformation in another, Displacement somewhere else, Modifiers in another, Dynamics, etc, etc and have them affecting only Mesh, not other Scene Items geometry?


Unification means far more than just slapping Modeler into Layout.
Lightwave 11 was released with an aspect of this mindset: Unified Sampling!

Now... For sure it is a big risky move that badly implemented will do more harm than good, but... for sure... is one known brickwall for Lightwave: for both it's delivery limits(does the list need to be unroled?) and also user-base limits.
Does / should / can LightWave be the all end app some of us wish? Maybe... Not... Just don't ditch Unification as if it was improper.

Hey... you could always use LW unified + "the old Modeler" or "the old Layout" on the side :P

Cheers

PS: I think also most modelers have in the back of their head that Modeling will only be developed in Lightwave after unification, so you can see how they want to get over that step, right? =D

Sensei
05-30-2012, 06:47 PM
For instance, as someone mentioned. Selecting polygons can sometimes take modeler minutes, until it completely crashes. I.e. if you are lucky enough to select a hundred thousand polygons in the UV-view by a wrong click. Moving a couples of hundre thousand polygons 2-3 meters takes my MacPro (8-core xeon - latest model) 10-30 seconds!!!

Half of it is handling undo, and second half is refreshing - all points of hundred thousands object changed position so whole object have to be uploaded to OpenGL, 4 times, for every viewport, if you're not in single viewport mode.

LW is updating immediately, while you drag and move mouse. Other apps often change to bounding box mode while moving mouse, then when user stops moving do refresh once, or just final refresh when mouse button is released.
I was shocked and disappointed when I saw such behaving in Cinema 4D. It's not speed! It's cheating.
In C4D when you're dragging point of sub-patch cage, sub-patch was disappearing (at least that was when I was testing it couple years ago), and until I released mouse button, it stayed this way! What an annoying thing! I don't want to have it in Modeler! Constant releasing mouse button just to see result...

lwanmtr
05-30-2012, 07:11 PM
Yes, thats common in other apps....point manipulation is one of the things Modeler is more intuitive about than the other apps.

for me I always model in a quad view....a singe view is ok for some things, but, really a perspective view is just not made for modeling

Sensei
05-30-2012, 07:13 PM
In perspective there are not visible reference images..

lwanmtr
05-30-2012, 07:18 PM
Actually.....you can make a box with 3 sides, apply the images for reference then build to that in a perspective view.

jwiede
05-30-2012, 09:09 PM
Agreed.

Interestingly, there's another recent thread with Mac users commenting in some numbers about the greatly improved stability they've noticed. Perhaps you could pursue your problems a bit with either Support or those having better success.
"Greatly improved" != "Great stability". IMO, the significance of LW11's improvements in stability really just highlights how horribly unstable LW10 was, in comparison. Pretending LW10 never existed, and comparing LW9.6 MacUB with LW11 MacUB, I find LW11's "improvement" w.r.t. MTBF period much less substantial -- they're both in the same neighborhood, if not immediate neighbors.

I'm glad for the improvements, but Mac LW's stability is still at the top of my LW grievance list.

mikkelen
05-30-2012, 09:20 PM
Half of it is handling undo, and second half is refreshing - all points of hundred thousands object changed position so whole object have to be uploaded to OpenGL, 4 times, for every viewport, if you're not in single viewport mode.

LW is updating immediately, while you drag and move mouse. Other apps often change to bounding box mode while moving mouse, then when user stops moving do refresh once, or just final refresh when mouse button is released.
I was shocked and disappointed when I saw such behaving in Cinema 4D. It's not speed! It's cheating.
In C4D when you're dragging point of sub-patch cage, sub-patch was disappearing (at least that was when I was testing it couple years ago), and until I released mouse button, it stayed this way! What an annoying thing! I don't want to have it in Modeler! Constant releasing mouse button just to see result...

Sensei, I'm not sure what your point is. But there are NO excuses for software running this slow in 2012, on multicore 64 bit systems with a zillion megabytes of ram and super-computer graphic cards...

mikkelen
05-30-2012, 09:32 PM
The contrary can also be said, since it's a tricky subject:
=D[/COLOR][/SIZE]

Well I prefer to do specialized tasks in specialized software/rooms, but I _could_ probably still do that in a unified LW - if I could have separate rooms for my tasks... BUT, BUT, BUT - why even cry about it, when LightWave have so many performance issues and stability issues at this point? Is it not more important to have a _functional_ software with a interface we know, than a revolutionary incarnation of the LW paradigm? If you want a truly unified environment, and if that is more important to you than familiarity, why not switch to Maya as your primary software? What does LW have that Maya does not have, except for being separated in two apps and using text-icons instead of graphical icons?

Why am I still using Lightwave?

Because I know the software... hence efficiency, speed and reliability is on the absolute top of my wish list.

BTW: I agree that unified environments and tools are very important, especially in terms of physics simulation and other appliances where flexibility and layering/noding/combinations of tools/features are necessary to produce resaults... but such tasks are not what I use LW for.

Sensei
05-30-2012, 09:34 PM
If other apps are cheating, computer speed doesn't matter. It's illusion of speed, not true speed, when they don't do exactly the same what our app.

If app X does calculate dynamics 100 FPS, and app Y is doing it 10 FPS, and then interpolate between these frames- second app will give illusion of speed- less cpu used.

Issue with selecting elements (which erikals is observing in Extend selection tool) in Modeler is simple bug though, and can be quickly fixed.

SBowie
05-30-2012, 09:43 PM
"Greatly improved" != "Great stability".Well, no doubt you're correct, John - but you know I didn't invent that thread, and it was unsolicited, so evidently some felt differently.

geo_n
05-30-2012, 10:05 PM
I don't understand the unified argument.

That's too bad.
So many aspects can be enhanced with a unified app. Too many to mention but here a sample.
Referencing and asset management - In lw with a lws and lwo that don't communicate perfectly we don't have robust referencing. No per object setting per scene. No form of robust xref, scene within a scene,etc. No scenestate, no takes, poor scene overrides. Always saving multiple copies of objects with slight variations per scene requirements. These aspects affects renderlayers, too, not renderbuffers btw.

For modellers a unified app would be benefial for parametric modelling, modifier stack/node that you won't have to drop and its always editable. Also animatable. Basic sample, loft a shape,polygon through a spline with a modifier. You don't have to drop the tool you can change the shape, spline. Animate the extrusion, animate the points. No workaround, no morphs, non-destructive workflow.

mikkelen
05-30-2012, 11:58 PM
If other apps are cheating, computer speed doesn't matter. It's illusion of speed, not true speed, when they don't do exactly the same what our app.

If app X does calculate dynamics 100 FPS, and app Y is doing it 10 FPS, and then interpolate between these frames- second app will give illusion of speed- less cpu used.

Well, I could care less how it works, but I just know that it's not good enough in the current version of LightWave. I think you understand my point, and there is no need to excuse.

mikkelen
05-31-2012, 12:05 AM
That's too bad.


Well, I even do rendering in a seperate app. Having the dual-app workflow keeps my projects clean and easy to co-operate on. My experience with other 3D applications are very small though, and non of the features you mention are something I feel I need. The only thing I need with LightWave is modern speed and more reliability.

Since I don't know when/if Newtek will fix it, I will probably start to use a little bit of Maya and some Modo, in combination with LightWave Modeler and LightWave Layout. That's a unity! ;)

Rayek
05-31-2012, 12:15 AM
True. My main reason not to update (just yet) is the modeler<->layout separation. It never agreed with me at all, seeing I came from a Max/Cinema4D background. Blender, for example, has some very nice referencing options: different scenes, copy scenes, reference objects, etc. All very simple, and (almost) everything can be animated. Same in C4D.

And for those who like the isolated Modeler approach: most modern 3d apps offer an object isolation mode, that feels (and can be made to look like) modeler.

By the way, one thing that does bother me in both Modeler and Layout (and the second reason for me to wait it out a bit longer): LW's GUI is so incredibly 'fixed' in nature, and difficult to really customize. As far as I can tell (and I've looked and looked) floating windows cannot be docked (at least they respond to <windows>(<shift>)<cursor keys>, which is nice in Win7); having more than two or three floating windows open at any time clutters the view (unless a multiple screen setup is used); no separate floating 3d views can be opened (which can be incredibly handy when working on a two or three screen setup); toolbars cannot be undocked or dragged; tools/groups of tools cannot be re-arranged by drag and drop; multiple floating windows of the same type cannot be cloned and pinned (handy for multiple material/object edits, keeping one or more objects' material settings open at all times); floating windows cannot be grouped; font size cannot be changed ?! (well, there's an experimental -f switch, or something, I believe for layout? ridiculous in this day and age - what are we going to do when desktop retina displays start hitting the market?)

Support for a two or more monitor setup is quite bad as well. LW's GUI is just too much geared towards a single screen.

I know I've complained about this before... But I would have expected at least *some* improved GUI configuration by now. The modeler<->layout separation is just one symptom of many due to its Bronze Age interface.

This is only going to get in the way of new functionality, until resolved. I mean, we're up to about 15 floating windows in Layout now! Photoshop found itself in a similar situation, and Adobe made damn well sure to consolidate its GUI - it's not perfect yet in its latest incarnation, but much improved over the horror that was CS.

Newtek, get y'rself a professional GUI designer - the current GUI is out of breath, and needs a serious overhaul.


...then again, I believe Softimage is even worse in this regard. Very much late Neolithic :D


That's too bad.
So many aspects can be enhanced with a unified app. Too many to mention but here a sample.
Referencing and asset management - In lw with a lws and lwo that don't communicate perfectly we don't have robust referencing. No per object setting per scene. No form of robust xref, scene within a scene,etc. No scenestate, no takes, poor scene overrides. Always saving multiple copies of objects with slight variations per scene requirements. These aspects affects renderlayers, too, not renderbuffers btw.

For modellers a unified app would be benefial for parametric modelling, modifier stack/node that you won't have to drop and its always editable. Also animatable. Basic sample, loft a shape,polygon through a spline with a modifier. You don't have to drop the tool you can change the shape, spline. Animate the extrusion, animate the points. No workaround, no morphs, non-destructive workflow.

geo_n
05-31-2012, 12:21 AM
Well, I even do rendering in a seperate app. Having the dual-app workflow keeps my projects clean and easy to co-operate on. My experience with other 3D applications are very small though, and non of the features you mention are something I feel I need. The only thing I need with LightWave is modern speed and more reliability.

Since I don't know when/if Newtek will fix it, I will probably start to use a little bit of Maya and some Modo, in combination with LightWave Modeler and LightWave Layout. That's a unity! ;)

Yes ofcourse different people need different things. But its good to cover all bases imho especially when other commercial appz(even blender) can, not just focus on one aspect which has been layout and the renderer for lw for quite sometime. Enough about the renderer if its as good as people say it is.
Lightwave needs to be more powerful in other areas to attract new users as of now they're not attracting users from other appz even losing some to modo which was just a focused modeller renderer a few years ago. I wouldn't have considered looking at modo again until recently when they added animation, scene referencing, volumetrics, etc. Good thing its not there yet but its gaining fast.

Rayek
05-31-2012, 12:30 AM
LW's renderer is good, and one of my reasons to stick with it. However, a standalone copy of VRAY is much less expensive. As are the plethora of quality open source render engines.

It should/can no longer be the defining factor for Lightwave. And we're back at the beginning: what is Lightwave's defining, winning, feature? Or is a combination of things?

erikals
05-31-2012, 01:11 AM
Actually.....you can make a box with 3 sides, apply the images for reference then build to that in a perspective view.

yep, and with e.g. the Maya navigation box,
making a perfect sideview is no problemo... :]

erikals
05-31-2012, 01:16 AM
What does LW have that Maya does not have, except for being separated in two apps and using text-icons instead of graphical icons?

quite a lot actually :]
(not questioning the lacks though)

Titus
05-31-2012, 03:25 AM
I don't understand the unified argument. I like to separate task in different programs.


The need to going back and forth is part of the lack of LW interactivity (even considering there are a few interactive internal tools). There are tasks where you need to work on both apps at the same time, rigging is one of them.



It makes my workflow more robust and organized. No need to have everything in one large mess...

That's fine. I've had several artists working in my company, some have voiced how much they like an organized program like LW, others love more chaotic pipelines like the one provided by Blender.

mikkelen
05-31-2012, 05:00 AM
quite a lot actually :]
(not questioning the lacks though)

I don't doubt you, but can you mention some?

erikals
05-31-2012, 06:53 AM
 
that said,
NT has stated they will unify it, so i think we'll just have to wait and see...
LW12 will be the start...?

and yep, this rocks... http://www.characteranimator.com/movies/reel_tech_01deformation.wmv

 

hrgiger
05-31-2012, 11:09 AM
Oh dear, we still have arguments against a unified application?

The 'it will be cluttered' argument is simply rubbish. There's so many advantages to unification that development discussions in house should be all about the 'when' and not the 'if'.

Cageman
05-31-2012, 11:34 AM
Some food for thought....

In the context of not unified applications (ie Layout and Modeler), we are also, kind of, touching on Multi-application pipelines, where "unification" is out the door and efficiency is what is sought after; enabling artists to use the 3D-software they feel is the best for the task at hand. This, often proves to be the best way to deal with things, especially in a small team. Obviously with a designed pipeline to allow for as little overhead as possible regarding cross-platform assets.

In such scenario, you are not really working in a unified environment, but as a team, it produces a much better endresult, compared to forcing artists into workflows that for them are unintuitive and more pain than joy.

I just wanted to have that said, because in that context, we are, effectively, throwing away everything that is good with a unified application, but we are at the same time able to produce more, with higher quality and with less technical hickups.

Obviously though, LW needs to get unified for many reasons. This could happen in stages... lets add point-manipulation ability in Layout, lets add the concept of clusters, lets add some deformers such as Lattice and Wire. I don't see the need for Layout to be able to completely work as a modeling application as a first stage.

zarti
05-31-2012, 02:23 PM
Long post folks, just ignore it if ..



pardon . i cannt . i found your long posts interesting since the core days . i like the style too ..

--

i just wanted to add few lines :

lws problem is not its form of existence ; two big pieces .

it is its UnAwareNess of itself .

it is like you are painting but every color resides inside its own drawer .

every time you need to change the color , > you must close the actual one > open the new one > use it > close it .. and so on .

if you want to combine two colors to create a new one .. you need a new drawer .

so the mess gets messier ..

but the worse part is the MentaliWave . =)

--


.warm hugs and peace

mikkelen
05-31-2012, 06:24 PM
"it is like you are painting but every color resides inside its own drawer ."

I agree wholeheartedly!

jasonwestmas
05-31-2012, 07:27 PM
Oh dear, we still have arguments against a unified application?

The 'it will be cluttered' argument is simply rubbish. There's so many advantages to unification that development discussions in house should be all about the 'when' and not the 'if'.

I still don't understand why separate apps are so cool. Every "unified app." I think has a separate model format anyway. There is simply very little incentive to separate modeler completely from layout.

lwanmtr
05-31-2012, 07:43 PM
I agree, Layout should have modeler tools...I for one am not against a unified app, I just think we could have both...since we already have the two apps, anyway...that way, if we choose, we can have the seperate modeler open.

mikkelen
05-31-2012, 07:58 PM
Maybe... but maybe Newtek should focus on making the system more responsive! If that means writing a new modeler as a part of Layout. Fine.

But currently LW can't handle complex scenes - at least not without some masochistic pain.

Ernest
06-01-2012, 01:38 AM
Happens. Max though, and I'm sure it's not a lot less memory demanding than Maya.

No need to speculate
Ram usage. Freshly launched, completely empty, main process only:
(Well, completely empty except for DAZ and Blender, which create an object on launch.)

3DS Max: 475,192K
ZBrush: 258,492K
Maya: 255,808K
DAZ4: 171,444K
Vue: 168,332
Softimage: 146,364K
Houdini: 113,304K
Layout: 71,880K
3D Coat: 69,380K
Messiah: 63,648K
Modeler: 58,488K
Blender: 45,308K
Modeler 5.6: 1,676K

lwanmtr
06-01-2012, 01:46 AM
Bit of a perspective there....I knew max was a memory hog, but didnt realize how much. I love that you include 5.6..amazing how much more apps use now compared to then.

What about Modo or Poser?

geo_n
06-01-2012, 02:00 AM
I agree, Layout should have modeler tools...I for one am not against a unified app, I just think we could have both...since we already have the two apps, anyway...that way, if we choose, we can have the seperate modeler open.

Would that mean we would still be relying on overrides (shadermeister, janus, etc) and multiple object versions in the future because we have a separate lwo format to deal with? Maybe time to ditch lwo?

lwanmtr
06-01-2012, 02:26 AM
For myself, I rarely use Modeler for any shader settings...just for making the model, morhps, uv's.

IMO, the scene file (.lws) is where any unique surfaces and such should be held... Car(1) (surfaces), Car(2)(surfaes).... lwo is still a good format to keep as you can hold a deault surface definitions as well as the geometry. The Surface editor would just have to be able to know how many versions of a particular object there are, then it would have a tick to use the lwo's surface definitions or to ovveride them from the .lws.

In my view..Modeler would be just that..a streamlined modeler with a focus on the best tools for modeling, uvmapping, deformation and other things you wouldnt need to animate.....Layout would be unified in that it would have all the surfacing and such as well as the deformation and modeling tools that would be most useful animated. Over time, Layout could be made to include all of the tools Modeler has

This frees up resources in both sides of it, as well as providing a more unified animation system.

But, then these are just my ideas of how I would like to see it.

However, in the reality of it, NewTek has alot to do to get Lightwave back into its prime before undertaking the task of a fully unified app again...I think we're seeing that they are working to modernize LW now, with 11's new features and the rewrites to the core

Serling
06-01-2012, 02:43 AM
I still don't understand why separate apps are so cool. Every "unified app." I think has a separate model format anyway. There is simply very little incentive to separate modeler completely from layout.

Biggest surprise I ever had when I first started using Lightwave (I even made it one of my first posts here, I believe)...

"Hey! Why can't I render objects in Modeler?"

Struck me as weird because you can surface in Modeler. I used to hate having to open a second app just to see how my surfaces (such as they were back in the day) were looking. I wasn't necessarily ready to animate anything...just wanted to see how my objects were looking.

I've gotten used to the workflow but it took me a long time. It definitely felt "clunky" to me when I first started using LW (4+ years ago).

A unified app would certainly address that issue. :)

lwanmtr
06-01-2012, 02:50 AM
Yeah, alot who came from using apps of less than 5-10 years old do get a little confused by the workflow....I came from having to script my very simple camera moves myself and use videoscape3d to render 3d models, which at the time I used Modeler3d.....Also used Imagine, which had 2 apps also, so it was not a problem for me to split my modeling and animating tasks into seperate processes.

That being said...If/when Lightwave becomes a unified app, I just hope they do it right and at least put a sheep button in.

Ernest
06-01-2012, 03:06 AM
Bit of a perspective there....I knew max was a memory hog, but didnt realize how much. I love that you include 5.6..amazing how much more apps use now compared to then.

What about Modo or Poser?

We don't own Modo. For the price, there was too much overlap with Lightwave. I'm pretty sure we had Poser. Not the latest version but I remember we tried it when there had been an offer where it was free or almost free. Couldn't find it. Maybe it got uninstalled at some point or it was installed in a laptop and someone took it home today.

probiner
06-01-2012, 03:09 AM
IMO, the scene file (.lws) is where any unique surfaces and such should be held... Car(1) (surfaces), Car(2)(surfaes)....

Although today I just use the Layer system for OGL display, and Nodes to the actual Render, if I understand you right, I'll have to disagree.

The environment where you model should be able to hold the Full Resolution, more than the environment where you have to manage all your assets (excluding render time). And that's why people use Zbrush; Bake details to UV textures; Use OGL viewports that allow them to see Displacement, Normals, Occlusion, Reflection, etc.
So, I get that a surface is just another asset, like a mesh, etc, and that is a bummer to go back and forward between Modeler and Layout to set those, vertex maps, etc.

So the 2 problems (Modeler subpar full display of detail and Layout dependecy on Modeler to assign Surfaces and Vertex maps) wouldn't go well with Layout being in charge of all of it:
If you're modeling, that would force you to send the meshes to Layout to be able to assign surface's color, spec, etc and see the mesh UV textured.

I think both would be tackled better with unification than crippling Modeler.
Maybe, there could be ways to ease up this, by selecting polygons in Layout, assign surfaces to them and "Save All Objects" to store them in respective LWO's. Or even have an Object Modifier to replace surfaces with a Surface Library.

Cheers

lwanmtr
06-01-2012, 03:18 AM
I just meant making the surface settings...not assigning polys to a surface...that would still be something you do in modeler, though you could also assign polys in layout too.

probiner
06-01-2012, 03:24 AM
Hmm... but how would you see if your model is well UV mapped without applying a texture, or have a different specularity (which can help to check the quality of a mesh's surface) or just different colors to differentiate meshes better?

I understand you that most of surfacing attributes are useless inside Modeler, especially without an Advanced OGL.
There is no purpose in making Modeler even more specialized if that means it will be cutoff from Layout, it's not like it will be Zbrush or Modo, or even go the other way and have Parametrics, etc...

I do agree though, that many tasks could be doable in parallel inside Layout, than exclusively in Modeler, for a transition.

Cheers

jwiede
06-01-2012, 04:15 AM
Some food for thought....

In the context of not unified applications (ie Layout and Modeler), we are also, kind of, touching on Multi-application pipelines, where "unification" is out the door and efficiency is what is sought after; enabling artists to use the 3D-software they feel is the best for the task at hand. This, often proves to be the best way to deal with things, especially in a small team. Obviously with a designed pipeline to allow for as little overhead as possible regarding cross-platform assets.

In such scenario, you are not really working in a unified environment, but as a team, it produces a much better endresult, compared to forcing artists into workflows that for them are unintuitive and more pain than joy.

I just wanted to have that said, because in that context, we are, effectively, throwing away everything that is good with a unified application, but we are at the same time able to produce more, with higher quality and with less technical hickups.

Obviously though, LW needs to get unified for many reasons. This could happen in stages... lets add point-manipulation ability in Layout, lets add the concept of clusters, lets add some deformers such as Lattice and Wire. I don't see the need for Layout to be able to completely work as a modeling application as a first stage.
While a multi-app pipeline does discard some of the general benefits of a unified application, when you look at the oft-cited specific benefits of unifying Layout and Modeler many of the specific unification benefits still accrue even in multi-app pipeline scenarios.

For example, a benefit I find quite valuable is having access to dynamics and the full set of deformations when modeling. So long as any modeling is still done in Lightwave (which is likely in any case where LW is the "central pkg" used) in the multi-app pipeline scenario, that benefit continues to offers value regardless of whether more abstract unification benefits are taken advantage of or not.

Similarly, having access to animatable modeling tools, easy ability to manipulate vmaps, and so forth offer benefits even for teams who intend to do most animation outside LW. In the cases where a specific benefit might not be immediately used, in many cases its presence still offers a kind of "insurance" should some fix be identified as needed during rendering. Just because a multi-app pipeline uses another app than LW for certain tasks does not mean _all_ instances of such tasks are most efficiently handled by switching to that other app.

The unified LW is still ultimately more flexible, and more capable. What matters is that the benefits are there for customers who choose to leverage them, regardless of whether every customer chooses to do so. Potential customers still value and insist that the opportunity of those benefits be present, even if they do not immediately intend to leverage it.

Further, the reality is that taken as a whole population, the (vast) majority of 3D seats sold are in unified packages. Regardless of the value unification represented in their choice, that still means most customers expect and are "used to" working in unified environments for their "primary" 3D platform. Sales proves demand, so taken as a whole, the market demand obviously favors unified packages.

lwanmtr
06-01-2012, 04:55 AM
Ahh...didnt quite explain well....lol. I use the basics...color/image map, spec, smoothing...was talking about the more involved things like setting up reflections, nodes, bump, etc...

Whats interesting about the unified app debate is that most of us use more than one app to produce what we need, because no app has everything....maya/lw/zbrush/realflow/lemmings/etc/....lol

probiner
06-01-2012, 06:03 AM
Whats interesting about the unified app debate is that most of us use more than one app to produce what we need, because no app has everything....maya/lw/zbrush/realflow/lemmings/etc/....lol


Well, lets be honest, ALT+TAB feels like godsend if you have to, in an unified app, go through a cumbersome combo of clicks/scrolls/windows/icons/toggles/drags/multiselects/keystrokes/menus, etc, to get what you need, but those aren't the examples we want to follow, right?

Now imagine if each app in your workflow forced you to have 2 window apps open with the same data loaded, and go back and forward, to get what you want done.
So the argument that people already use several things to get the work done isn't that strong; especially when you leave out that integration and awareness allows you to do more with less; without as many workarounds, "straw man" data, duplications we have to use today.

Cheers

geo_n
06-01-2012, 09:47 AM
no app has everything....maya/lw/zbrush/realflow/lemmings/etc/....lol

True. but I think 3dcoat users for example would be migrating to other software if it didn't have uv and retopo tools. For a specialized 3d sculpting and painting app not to have these functions is inexcusable.
Similarly a "complete" animation package, 3dmax, maya, c4d, etc, a unified environment has shown its advantages more than disadvantages. Unless I see them splitting their app into a layout and a modeller. I would like to see how they market those appz as saying we have created a separate modeller that doesn't communicate well with the other half. Thats crazy :D probably fire the person who made that.

Phil
06-01-2012, 01:00 PM
"Greatly improved" != "Great stability". IMO, the significance of LW11's improvements in stability really just highlights how horribly unstable LW10 was, in comparison. Pretending LW10 never existed, and comparing LW9.6 MacUB with LW11 MacUB, I find LW11's "improvement" w.r.t. MTBF period much less substantial -- they're both in the same neighborhood, if not immediate neighbors.

I'm glad for the improvements, but Mac LW's stability is still at the top of my LW grievance list.

Interesting. I used to find 9.6 was quite unstable, but I don't often see crashes these days that aren't a result of a bug in a 3rd party addon. The core application (mostly Layout, for my purposes and in my experience) has been pretty solid since 10.1. I have noted that almost all core application crashes come from FiberFX - NT need to get that code fully reviewed ASAP, it's been a weak point for far too long and whilst the results are good when FiberFX is in the mood to cooperate, it's a frustrating exercise.

jwiede
06-03-2012, 11:38 AM
Interesting. I used to find 9.6 was quite unstable, but I don't often see crashes these days that aren't a result of a bug in a 3rd party addon. The core application (mostly Layout, for my purposes and in my experience) has been pretty solid since 10.1.
Right, but by your own admission, your focus was primarily on Layout, and thus largely omitted a substantial portion of Lightwave's overall functionality (Modeler) from evaluation.

mborge
06-04-2012, 01:30 AM
My two cents:

Unification alone is misleading - There's nothing better, IMHO, than using a simple intuitive and streamlined tool that excels at what it was designed to do - especially when that tool has been smartly polished and simplified for ease of learning. You're in and you're out and you're happy even if it means moving between multiple programs.

Just because you have one massive unified tool doesn't mean it gets easier to use - MAYA anyone?!

You don't need a thousand things to learn - you need 10 that are fast, effective, and intuitive - because those are the things you'll actually use.

Case and point: ZBrush vs Mudbox. ZBrush has everything and the kitchen sink but, Mudbox has something ZBrush can't touch - A 1hr learning curve due to an extremely focused app and and smartly designed interface. It just makes sense and I can make someone productive in nothing flat.

Now consider Modo for example - I use it and like it and it's all FANCY UNIFIED - but, there's a ton of tools lacking hotkeys cause there's so fricken many and you have to constantly move your mouse off your project to find tools and adjust the tool properties and settings etc. In addition, things are packed in - hidden under tabs etc. They say it's all about workflow but, even in all it's glory, it's nowhere near the streamlined simplicity and design of Silo and it's simple, intuitive context aware modeling tools. Yes, modo obviously overpowers Silo with options and features. However, Silo despite its limitations, let's you work intuitively.

So what's my point - The 3D world has long been a place of geek specialists and great complexity. Maya's complexity, breeds specialists. But quietly, there's another movement. People who specialize the tool and simplify the artist's life. These people will inevitably win out. It's an iPad world people!

Unified or not means beans - it's simplicity and function that matter.
GoZ and all applinks everywhere prove it - multiple apps in 1 workflow and who cares.

Unify all you want but, if it's not clean, streamlined, intuitive, and functional it's nothing.

jasonwestmas
06-04-2012, 06:46 AM
outdated animation workflow in LW. . .yes. Just listen to Oliver, he's talking mainly about interactive "on the fly" editing. That isn't LW's strong-suit.

A company needs to consider the entire pipeline, not just one smaller section. In an overall efficiency, (not a quality) contest, LW 11 would have been super awesome 7 years ago maybe.

erikals
06-04-2012, 09:24 AM
can't be that bad...

3dArtist magazine LW11 review.... 9-out-of-10!
http://forums.newtek.com/showthread.php?t=128484

http://erikalstad.com/backup/misc.php_files/wink.gif

mborge
06-04-2012, 11:56 PM
I was just reminded of those old software package comparisons.
Has bevel tool? LW: yes, Max: yes, Maya: yes, Modo: yes, ... as if it's that easy. :D

LMAO - :thumbsup:


... it's interesting to see how much power is lost in LW, despite the tools "being there", just not integrated, not usable at any point one might need them. Yes, a dedicated modelling toolset is surely more powerful if it's streamlined for that purpose, but then we're looking at only one part of the pipeline and disregard that those tools one might think to be exclusive to this one task are desperately needed by others in a completely different context.

:agree: For me that's where the context aware part comes in. I love it when the toolset you're use to starts to pay off in big ways because, someone thought ahead.

- A little off topic but, I get a warm fuzzy that video editing has been added to Photoshop CS6. It may suck at first, but, being able to use the tools I know so well for a new task is awesome. - YES, you After Effects Gurus have my sincere apologies for such blasphemy but, wait and see how a familiar toolset pays off in making video editing accessible to a whole new crowd.

mborge
06-05-2012, 12:20 AM
can't be that bad...

3dArtist magazine LW11 review.... 9-out-of-10!
http://forums.newtek.com/showthread.php?t=128484

http://erikalstad.com/backup/misc.php_files/wink.gif

I think, like most of us that are still here, people like to root for LW because, it represents the underdog independent/freelancer spirit. LW really does empower the small teams and independents.

But, I'll be honest, I'm on the fence about buying 11 because, one, I mainly model (and 11 doesn't offer much), and two, I'm a little concerned about their sales and longevity.
I'm just waiting for some executive announcement that LW is no longer financially feasible and Newtek just makes Tricasters now. (Plus I hate dongles.:D)

lwanmtr
06-05-2012, 12:36 AM
I still continue to invest in LW..for one I know the tool, and how to use other apps (when I need)...but also because I still think that it performs very good in many jobs.

The one thing that I would note is that we are seeing the Modeler tools tab expanding with each release since 9.6, which says to me that a unification is occuring, just not an instant thing that most people want.

It's also possible that at some point, Layout and Modeler may become essentially UI's and launching them will actually launch the 'Core' which has also been getting a little larger each time, instead of launching the Hub. Which, would be a cool way to do it..Those who like the 2 app approach will have a familiar workflow, while the two apps will be communicating automatically through the core, since all you'll be doing is switching between interfaces.

geo_n
06-05-2012, 03:50 AM
If people assume unification=slapping modeller and layout together and call it unified like other software then they have not used or understand the advantages of a unified system. Too bad.
Don't think there's any software out there that's perfectly streamlined. Functional, yes. Intuitive, relative to the user for this kind of complex appz.
Even lightwave being split is not streamlined at all with properties all over the place.
Functionality, might be a reason why people are asking for a unified system because many basic functions are missing in lightwave. Modelling in camera, animatable parametric procedural modelling tools, compound modelling tools, real animatable booleans, etc. Maybe its smarter to add a timeline in modeller and have two animatable programs? :D :D
That's just modelling not even mentioning advantages in animation, renderlayers, scene within a scene concept, referencing, non-destructive workflows, etc.
Anyway just speculating since there's no tangible proof lightwave will ever be unified.

erikals
06-05-2012, 05:54 AM
 
Chuck mentions unification here...
http://forums.newtek.com/showthread.php?p=1228850&highlight=unification#post1228850

unification is a big word though, it will happen in steps.
(which i think is a good thing)

i'm just very curious to when the first step will be released, will we see a preview at Siggraph?

i hope... http://erikalstad.com/backup/misc.php_files/goodluck.gif

 

lwanmtr
06-05-2012, 02:12 PM
Like I said, I think we're already seeing it starting with the gradual addition of more modeling tools in Layout...there is alot of ground to cover in doing it and I dont think we'll see a sudden unified lightwave, but one that gradually adds...unless they hit some paradigm and are able to slip all the tools in easily (such as a genie shows up and magically merges them).

hrgiger
06-05-2012, 06:06 PM
Like I said, I think we're already seeing it starting with the gradual addition of more modeling tools in Layout...there is alot of ground to cover in doing it and I dont think we'll see a sudden unified lightwave, but one that gradually adds...unless they hit some paradigm and are able to slip all the tools in easily (such as a genie shows up and magically merges them).

Any expansion of modeling tools in Layout thus far hardly indicates that any real effort has gone into unification. Again, if simply the addition of modeling tools in Layout is being used as a benchmark for how far along the process is, then people aren't seeing the true benefits of a unified codebase.

lwanmtr
06-05-2012, 06:29 PM
Well, its a nice start, specially given the amount of ground they need to make up.

I'm not a programmer, but I'm pretty sure its not as easy as drag and drop....not to mention all the features (besides modeling) that they need to fix and/or add to get LW up to the same level on dynamics, character animation, etc.

Im sure we'll see the magical unified app....its just a matter of patience.

mikkelen
06-05-2012, 08:04 PM
It's also possible that at some point, Layout and Modeler may become essentially UI's and launching them will actually launch the 'Core' which has also been getting a little larger each time, instead of launching the Hub. Which, would be a cool way to do it..Those who like the 2 app approach will have a familiar workflow, while the two apps will be communicating automatically through the core, since all you'll be doing is switching between interfaces.

Sounds like the absolutely right solution. But Newtek need to move fast. We need a more robust environment, if LW is going to be usefull for really complex work, and modern 3D is really complex.

How large is the development-team on LightWave anyhow? Is Newtek really the right owner/developer at this point? It seems like the toasters get a lot more love than the 3D application? And how much does AutoDesk spend on development each year on 3D solutions, versus Newtek?

LightWave is a really cool app, but will it be possible to keep up? Sounds like a merger would be fantastic, a bold alternative to AutoDesk.

Btw: I have a real problem using any AutoDesk product. As I fear AdobeDesk or AutoAdobe, and a unified workflow for videoediting, painting, 3d-animation and publishing... now, you can do everything in one package! ;)

gravin
06-05-2012, 08:55 PM
(Plus I hate dongles.:D)

Something must be wrong with me, I like the idea of having a dongle or hardware key for my more expensive software. I like having tangible evidence of ownership :D

Lightwaves licensing policies were a big sell for me overall. I don't want to drop this kind of cash on a peice of software and be locked into owning for the rest of my life. If for some unfortunate reason I had to move away from 3d I can recoup a portion of my investment by selling my license.

Not the best reasoning to choose LW over the competition but It did play a major role in my decision to pick it for my personal toolset.

lwanmtr
06-05-2012, 10:21 PM
Im torn on the dongle issue.....on the one hand I dont like it because if it fries, you're stuck until you can get a replacement sent.....However, with a hardware key, you can more easily move between different machines, anywhere. With the other apps, you're tied to a machine and cant just move back and forth....not to mention that with Maya (at least) you have to specify platform and have to pay for a 2nd license to have pc and mac versions. With Lightwave, you get both for the same cost.

Sensei
06-05-2012, 10:24 PM
With Lightwave, you get both for the same cost.

Because one hardware dongle can't be plugged at the same time either to PC and Mac.
Software license, can.

DigitalSorcery8
06-05-2012, 10:51 PM
Because one hardware dongle can't be plugged at the same time either to PC and Mac.
Software license, can.

And you have to pay TWICE - as he stated in regards to Maya. Only ONCE for LW - just move the dongle. :D

Though I like how Modo does it. They apparently trust you more as opposed to most other vendors.

PS. I know squat about Maya, so I have NO idea how they work their system. Fortunately I've never had a problem with LW dongles - never had one die yet.

lwanmtr
06-05-2012, 10:59 PM
Right, but when you buy Maya (and most other software), you are licensed for one platform/one seat...the license is tied to the machine it was installed on and you cannot install it on a 2nd machine, unless you pay for a 2nd license (or buy a network license).

Yeah, Modo and even Poser just use a license #, which is nice because you can install on any machine.