PDA

View Full Version : Will Lightwave ever be *one* program?



bjornkn
01-15-2013, 05:13 PM
I haven't been using LW for a while, and neither have I been reading this (and other) LW forums.
Now I was considering upgrading from 9.61 to 11(.5).
Unfortunately it looks like Modeler and Layout have still not been merged into one program? This was very disappointing, as there was a lot of talk about it a couple of years ago. There are so many advantages to being able to model, animate and render in the same program.
Will it ever be merged?
The upgrade is quite pricey too, at US$730 (at current exchange rate from NOK).
My main modeler is SketchUp, and I was previously rendering in LW, but then mostly used Twilight. I have recently bought TheaRender (very nice unbiased/biased renders) with SU plugin too.
I was wondering if I should rather buy Modo, for which there is a Thea plugin too, rather than upgrade LW now, as the price isn't that much higher than the LW upgrade.
AFAIK Thea will not get any LW support.
I would love to hear that I'm wrong about presuming that LW will never be a single program...

hrgiger
01-15-2013, 05:28 PM
http://www.cgchannel.com/2011/06/rob-powers-on-lightwaves-three-year-roadmap/ Specifically the next few paragraphs: "However, Powers did hint that Bullet physics was due for integration into LightWave (“I will say that dynamics are very important to us”) and that one of the package’s thorniest legacy issues -* the separation of Modeler and Layout into separate applications -* was finally due for resolution. Ultimately, I can’t see a future trajectory of our product not including a unified interface for modelling and animation,” he said.

Of course, that was a year and half ago. A lot has changed over the last few years so its hard to say when and if integration will actually happen.

erikals
01-15-2013, 05:35 PM
i assume they will do at least some sort of integration in LW12, i know there would be drama if they didn't.
it's been talked about for 15 years. many people are mocking the split, and it's not without a reason.
this said, Rob / Matt said this was a high-pri just 2 months ago, so let's cross fingers and toes.

well, $700 is slightly pricey, but remember you can skip upgrades, thus saving half the money.
AutoDesk just raised their upgrade prices significantly, a small comfort maybe.

my advice, wait for LW12...

hrgiger
01-15-2013, 05:40 PM
i assume they will do at least some sort of integration in LW12, i know there would be drama if they didn't.


That's a pretty big assumption. I assumed there would be some sign of at least a beginning effort towards integration in 11 but there's nada.

erikals
01-15-2013, 05:52 PM
I assumed there would be some sign of at least a beginning effort towards integration in 11 but there's nada.

same here, hence my assumption :]

Cryonic
01-15-2013, 11:32 PM
There has been some integration... albeit minimal, with the addition of some minor modelling tools into Layout.

meatycheesyboy
01-15-2013, 11:47 PM
Weren't those changes made back in the LW9 days with nothing since then?

erikals
01-16-2013, 12:08 AM
not to be mean, but the definition of current Layout modeling tools are more like "microscopic"

Lewis
01-16-2013, 01:54 AM
Upgrading from 9.6.1 to 11.5 for 700$ is pretty good deal, 11.x series brought many many advances over 9.x so you would benefit for sure. Now onto integration well you are right it's still separate and we still hope it wont' be for long but nothing has been officially confirmed on how and when they plan to do it so don't base your decision on that but rather on what it has NOW.

Hail
01-16-2013, 01:56 AM
If I remember correctly, Rob did mention there being some architectural changes/rewrite that allowed them to make new tools and also laid the ground work for future updates.
So its possible that some work of that sort may have been done.

erikals
01-16-2013, 02:44 AM
yeah, have a vague memory of something like that. think it was mentioned summer 2012 or so...

jwiede
01-16-2013, 03:36 AM
At this point, if integration is important to you, you might be better off waiting and seeing what LW12 brings, instead of upgrading now. Wait a few more months, and the traditional "upgrade and get the upgrade to next version free"-type deal should become available as we get closer to LW12's release -- that way you can look and see what level of integration is actually delivered in LW12, if any, before committing to the upgrade, and only pay a single upgrade price. If you upgrade now, it's early enough that you'll wind up paying for the subsequent upgrade to LW12 as well, and if the desired integration doesn't show up in LW12, you're out the cost of the upgrade to LW11.x.

sami
01-16-2013, 04:33 AM
Is integration really all it's cracked up to be?? Not to retread old territory, but to me integration is not important, certainly if it integration means editing objects "in scene". I don't know about everyone else, but my Scenes can get complex fast. It's nice having a clean separate object file. Plus, I like having a "prep stage" to do my modelling and stuff before animating them. Who cares if they are different executables that act as one? Whatever the case, I hope if integration occurs there is some kind of "edit mode" somewhat like in Illustrator or Flash when you double-click on a group and edit that grouped item as if it were the only thing on the artboard (but obviously better than that). Editing in-scene sounds messy and cumbersome to me if it is done badly - it could be the bane of LW if implemented wrong.

On the other hand if integration means proper surfacing, better opengl & VPR in Modeler including cameras, and Layout having the ability to animate or envelope all modeling tools and unified scripting language changes so there's no need for comring or anything funky and all LW SDK is accessible from one script, then yes, that is great. But if it's going to work like Blender or be all jumbled up I will pine for the days when we had a separate Modeler & Layout.

I think the key driver for integration should be consistent user experience between the programs with equivalent feature sets and a seamless transtion between programs or modes (edit vs animate), and the driver should not be just stick them in one executable. It's about Modeler not getting as much love over the years as Layout - I think that is a big reason people demand integration. If the apps were more unified and complete in how they work together, the integration conversation would be far less important.

safetyman
01-16-2013, 04:57 AM
There are times when I wish LW was an integrated app, but other times when I like it separate. If I had to choose one, I'd vote for integrated, as this would seem to make it easier to implement new features, and if it's more mainstream maybe more folks would be willing to hop on board. More users = good.


But if it's going to work like Blender or be all jumbled up I will pine for the days when we had a separate Modeler & Layout.

Not sure what you mean by that. Blender has a way to switch between scene types (animation, modeling, game engine, compositing, motion tracking, scripting, UV editing, etc.). Isn't this the way all the big boys do it? And didn't Core show this type of interface when it was introduced? Also, Blender allows you to break off separate windows, so you could have the animation component on one monitor and the modeler on another and work seamlessly between the two. Didn't mean to derail the thread, sorry.

Lewis
01-16-2013, 04:58 AM
To make it short - YES it's VERY important and YES it's been beaten to death many time son this forums. There is far more advantages than disadvantages when program is unified.

Just one of most easiest/stupidest examples is my recent project, scene when loaded uses 16GB in layout and in modeler it uses 7Gb so i can't have them both open ('coz split app duplicates all textures/geoetry in RAM) so workflow is such pain even with my 24Gb machine :(. So current workflow is constant opening/closing each oen up to all changes that architect makes between test renders. If it was not split i wouldn't have to double RAM usage for it so 16GB would be sufficient for all. On top of that there is animatable modeling tools, live modifiers etc. etc...

erikals
01-16-2013, 05:22 AM
Sami, earlier video, this one just touches the surface >
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6IYmspJP1Zk

bjornkn
01-16-2013, 05:37 AM
It looks like there is no current info about any integration happening soon anyway?
AFAIK when CORE was launched IIRC integration was one of the main features it would contain??
That is a while ago, and still nothing has materialized?
VPR and instancing would be nice to have, but I already have FPrime and hd_Instance.
Better fibers, physics, flocking etc would be nice to have too, but not something that I would use much.
Guess I'd better wait until v12 then?

Re separate vs integrated : This has been discussed as long as I have been using LW, but I have never really understood why anyone would prefer them separated. There should be nothing that prevents an integrated program from switching between different modes? Running both programs at the same time with the same data is really outdated technology IMHO.
With complicated scenes In SketchUp I sometimes work in 2 running instances at the same time. One works as 'Layout' and one as 'Modeler'. In 'Modeler' I have a single building, with dwg/jpg plans, elevations etc. Then the building is exported as a component and inserted into 'Layout' in a larger situation plan, with several buildings etc. This way the main scene doesn't get cluttered with all those dwgs and their layers. Making changes in either 'program' is easily synchronized by saving/reloading the component. This works very well, and a lot better than LWs Modeler-hub-Layout system.

50one
01-16-2013, 06:28 AM
Well there is one good thing about keeping them separated - you can always model something, while the scene being rendered, other than this , it's just pain in the neck...

I would like to know how they gonna rsolve the issue of not having core /updating it in BG while updating the Layout and modeler - while maintaining man power to handle both tasks effectively, as it seems LW group will rather take the nuts and bolts from Core and update the Layout and modeler. There is absolutely no way we willl see one app in the 'near future' i would rather focus on adding some modeling tools to layout so the set extension modeling would be much more effective.

lardbros
01-16-2013, 06:51 AM
Integration would be perfect... but I've never had to animate any vertex or polygon translations in 3dsMax, and that's in well over a decade of working full-time! Now, animated booleans/anything else in a modifier stack would be awesome! :D

I would wait until 11.5 or 12 and see what occurs. If it doesn't fit the bill, then maybe choose the next best option to you, Modo or something?

Lewis
01-16-2013, 06:51 AM
Well there is one good thing about keeping them separated - you can always model something, while the scene being rendered, other than this , it's just pain in the neck....

And why do you think thats not possible on unified app ? You can always run 2nd instance and do modeling there while first one is rendering (i just opened 3 instances of 3DSMax here at work). Heck some apps even can "send to render" and work on new project in same instance while backgorund is rendering like media encoder in Adobe premiere.

bjornkn
01-16-2013, 07:03 AM
And why do you think thats not possible on unified app ? You can always run 2nd instance and do modeling there while first one is rendering (i just opened 3 instances of 3DSMax here at work). Heck some apps even can "send to render" and work on new project in same instance while backgorund is rendering like media encoder in Adobe premiere.
Exactly :)
If LW should be separated it should rather be in Lightwave & renderer, and not Modeler & Layout. The way it locks up the computer while rendering is quite annoying, and shouldn't be necessary. I guess I could've used network rendering, but with only one usable PC it isn't very attractive...

50one
01-16-2013, 07:03 AM
Two instances of 3dsmax? Madman!

sami
01-16-2013, 07:18 AM
Not sure what you mean by that. Blender has a way to switch between scene types (animation, modeling, game engine, compositing, motion tracking, scripting, UV editing, etc.). Isn't this the way all the big boys do it? And didn't Core show this type of interface when it was introduced? Also, Blender allows you to break off separate windows, so you could have the animation component on one monitor and the modeler on another and work seamlessly between the two. Didn't mean to derail the thread, sorry.
Sorry I'm thinking of a pre 2.6 blender - I was not fond of it's interface at the time and didn't enjoy the way they integrated modeling and animation. Perhaps it's better now. I tend only to use Blender for its import export capabilities now if at all.


To make it short - YES it's VERY important and YES it's been beaten to death many time son this forums. There is far more advantages than disadvantages when program is unified.
I fully agree - but only if the integration interface is very well thought out and they hire lots of interaction designers and artists to test before they ship with something. Unity is an example of a very well thought out UI. I just feel that such a massive move in LW deserves to be be done right, and if done wrong, then it could really ruin the app. Also, your point about 2 exes being a memory problem is well taken. But isn't that just up to decent thread management? I guess in the same app the threads could share some of the same data meaning that your memory footprint would be lower and your example would be better.


Sami, earlier video, this one just touches the surface >
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6IYmspJP1Zk
lol, fair enough erikals. But you really need to get better clients if they hassle you like that over your shoulder ;)

erikals
01-16-2013, 07:37 AM
hey, i got though clients! 8/

Lewis
01-16-2013, 07:39 AM
Two instances of 3dsmax? Madman!

Hehe yeah but MAX boot time on SSD is "only" 25-30 seconds, thats mere 10x longer than Lw boot time :D.

erikals
01-16-2013, 07:42 AM
from what i heard the latest Max releases have been kinda unstable,
so add that number a couple times more...

50one
01-16-2013, 07:50 AM
I stayed with v.2012 and dumped subscription, even tho I've got it on SSD at home, i still can go to kitchen make myself a sandwich, get some beverage , go back to my "office", get naked and wait few seconds to see the splash screen.

2012/2013 maya and max are quite unstable for me, but i could say the same about LW(but still less crashy than 3dsmax and maya) and early versions of modo pre Sp4...

sami
01-16-2013, 07:53 AM
hey, i got though clients! 8/

? I thought that was you talking to yourself. hence the joke :p

erikals
01-16-2013, 08:03 AM
always do ;]

Ryan Roye
01-16-2013, 08:26 AM
A solid application will always take priority in my eyes over a "combined" solution. As long as Lightwave doesn't become bloatware like most AutoDesk/Adobe products, then I'm all for meshing modeler with layout.

I really like the lightweight nature of Lightwave due to its split structure, but at the same note I can also see the bottleneck that is created in tasks that involve both modeler and layout (weighting, morphed geometry adjustments, checking poly flow, etc).

digitaldoc
01-16-2013, 09:25 AM
It would be nice to retain the object scene separation to facilitate proxies, substitutions, etc.

Surrealist.
01-16-2013, 09:37 AM
I think it would have been easier to continue to develop core. I can not really say I ever agreed with the decision to abandon it.

It is about functionality though. And if they don't really have the resources to add new functionality and integrate, then, what we will see is more isolated tools like rigging tools in Modeler. And it will probably go that way for a while.

As far as I understand it, there is such a large difference in the code between the two that that is the main problem. It is the legacy that is hanging with it. So I see an integration as a much larger project than we may be thinking it is - as outsiders looking in. Going back to a bad four letter word for a second. This is why that direction was absolutely necessary to have one application. Once that was abandoned, then in my mind, for all practical intents and purposes, so was integration. For a long long time.

So it will be more or less more of the same. Smaller enhancements to the existing tool set within the practicality of what is currently the workflow. 2 Apps. Rig tools in Modeler, a transform widget in Modeler, more dynamics in Layout. Better integration with other apps and certainly more render enhancements.

Modo is a promising solution if 1 app is important - for the price.

But I could be wrong on this, but my prediction is v. 12 won't be much closer to integration. If so, 12 is a long long way off.

prometheus
01-16-2013, 09:52 AM
Im sure we will see more modeling tools showing up in Layout...but it may take some time depending on what they focus on.
One big question is how they can maintain Layout clean and almost as it is now rather than jampacked with buttons and menuīs, some sort of clever UI setup is needed where you can switch
to model UI and back again.

I wanted to have both options too, that is a type of modeler that you can open and run single or use layout modeler.

Modeling in scene context would be nice, that is to have brush sculpting area or terrain, next to other objects or next to instances etc, that is a little hard to do with modeler as it is now (first we also need basic sculpt brush for that)

Modeling with better shading and lighting modes will be nice too

Particle or point sculpting..as modo and cinema4d has, that would allow for direct creation,manipulation and instant view of created point clusters with hvīs etc within the scene context and without having to re applyhypervoxels to each newly created point as we do now in modeler, and you also get more exact scene context placement with everything else.

Weight paint maps, and edit/sculpt over displacements would help a lot too, also useful for painting areas of deformation and density maps for instances, I would
also like to see extension of painting to regular bitmaps...without the need to switch to modeler or a paint program, that is a workflow speed enhancement.

Michael

hrgiger
01-16-2013, 12:59 PM
I think it would have been easier to continue to develop core. I can not really say I ever agreed with the decision to abandon it.

+1




As far as I understand it, there is such a large difference in the code between the two that that is the main problem. It is the legacy that is hanging with it. So I see an integration as a much larger project than we may be thinking it is - as outsiders looking in. Going back to a bad four letter word for a second. This is why that direction was absolutely necessary to have one application. Once that was abandoned, then in my mind, for all practical intents and purposes, so was integration. For a long long time.



Hmm, but are they actually integrating the two together or are they just going to create modeling within Layout? Basically recreating modeler within the layout framework? It would seem to make sense to make an API within Layout that will allow for the introduction of modeling within the layout framework, hopefully of course integrated well so that it's not just a bolt on sort of thing. In other words, communication with other aspects of Layout. So I'm not sure if a merger between the two programs is actually what will happen.

bobakabob
01-16-2013, 04:47 PM
How many years has this debate raged, yet here we are in 2013 and LW is still a program of two halves. One big advantage of integration would be point manipulation in Layout which would give much greater control in character animation. One day..? Still, the clarity of modelling in one program and animating and rendering in Layout is intuitive and workflow is efficient enough. Years ago I hated working in the clunky 'integrated' mess that was Max and still do.

calilifestyle
01-16-2013, 05:39 PM
110430 one day

Surrealist.
01-16-2013, 06:13 PM
+1
Hmm, but are they actually integrating the two together or are they just going to create modeling within Layout? Basically recreating modeler within the layout framework? It would seem to make sense to make an API within Layout that will allow for the introduction of modeling within the layout framework, hopefully of course integrated well so that it's not just a bolt on sort of thing. In other words, communication with other aspects of Layout. So I'm not sure if a merger between the two programs is actually what will happen.

Interesting point. I am not really sure. I am just kind of doing the math as far as a projection of an ideal situation, which would be one application eventually. And considering what I consider to have been a realistic projection in the beginning of 10 years - not even 5. (where is Modo now in 10 years?) Then consider the time lost in the failed effort and add to that what I think is a very clumsy way to go about it, which will take even longer, if it can ever even happen at all, it is a ways off. A long ways off.

djwaterman
01-16-2013, 06:44 PM
When your in Modeler a subD object is a nice clean wireframe, the same object in Layout is all ugly triangles and very dense. This suggests to me that the fundamental differences between the two programs is massive. In most case I prefer the separation of utilities, but there are times when it would be better unified. When using Maya sometimes the fact it's all unified is actually a pain and sometimes its what you want. I just don't know anymore, I'm on the fence. I imagine it will be unified at some point. I was thinking about a button in either app called UNIFY that opens a third app that incorporates aspects of both. That's just ridiculous isn't it, even more work to design, a third app rather than a single one.

shrox
01-16-2013, 11:02 PM
Will Lightwave ever be *one* program?

No.

Yes.

If I am right this proves I am psychic.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMd0EgAlu4E

dsol
01-17-2013, 03:35 AM
Well there is one good thing about keeping them separated - you can always model something, while the scene being rendered, other than this , it's just pain in the neck....

This could be solved quickly easily by adding a simple background render app/script. But in the long term, a multithreaded non-locking UI is going to be needed. That brings a lot of other workflow benefits too.

lardbros
01-17-2013, 05:33 AM
As long as we keep separate model and scene files (as an option maybe), we can always open two instances of (integrated) LW one to render in, and another to continue modelling. That would work fine... and already do this in 3dsMax. Only difference being, that in LW if we save a model, it would automatically update in the already open scene... brilliant!

dsol
01-17-2013, 05:46 AM
As long as we keep separate model and scene files (as an option maybe), we can always open two instances of (integrated) LW one to render in, and another to continue modelling. That would work fine... and already do this in 3dsMax. Only difference being, that in LW if we save a model, it would automatically update in the already open scene... brilliant!

You wouldn't even need separate file formats. You could just keep your organisation of a scene the way it is in Lightwave right now - except that LWOs would be replaced by simple object-only scenes (with mesh data - and possibly other components, like images - embedded). This also means you can keep bones, lights etc. in your "object" files, rather than at a higher master scene level - which makes it a lot easier to reuse objects across multiple shots/setups.

Of course, you'd need to be able to (non-destructively) override properties of these imported mini-scenes in the master. But the changes (applied as deltas - with a lot of safety checks and smart interpretation of changes) should be stored in the master scene file. So you can import and animate a rigged character in a scene, without modifying the existing pre-rigged object file.

Rayek
01-17-2013, 01:31 PM
Wouldn't it be possible to consolidate the two into a "super hub" environment, keeping the code bases for modeler and layout separated, but merge them into one window with two tabs - and improve the interlinked communication so that any object in layout is immediately updated?

Or better, similar to Blender: select an object in layout, hit the "edit mode" (modeler mode) key, and the interface switches to Modeler. As it stands, modeler's approach feels a bit like the edit mode in Blender, but as an external app. Again with keeping the modeler base code separate from Layout.

For both solutions the devs would then have to shuffle some commands around, but it should in principle be possible.

Lewis
01-17-2013, 01:58 PM
Wouldn't it be possible to consolidate the two into a "super hub" environment, keeping the code bases for modeler and layout separated, but merge them into one window with two tabs - and improve the interlinked communication so that any object in layout is immediately updated?

Or better, similar to Blender: select an object in layout, hit the "edit mode" (modeler mode) key, and the interface switches to Modeler. As it stands, modeler's approach feels a bit like the edit mode in Blender, but as an external app. Again with keeping the modeler base code separate from Layout.

For both solutions the devs would then have to shuffle some commands around, but it should in principle be possible.

If they "keep the separate code" as you suggest then what's the benefit ? It would be harder to update app (2 separate apps) and some stuff will still be duplicated and if code is separate there would need to be 2 undo systems, 2 modifer stacks, 2..... basically same what we have now but different GUI. That's not solution. It has to be one app with different workspace so you can go into "modeling" workspace or "animating" or mix or any one user wants i.e. custom. Key thing is to merge code so that you can for instance animate modeling bevel, or animate Bend tool but have it LIVE as modifier and not destructive as now, model with instancing, paint instances etc. etc...

hrgiger
01-17-2013, 02:09 PM
Wouldn't it be possible to consolidate the two into a "super hub" environment, keeping the code bases for modeler and layout separated, but merge them into one window with two tabs - and improve the interlinked communication so that any object in layout is immediately updated?



That's really not much better then what we have now.

If they're not going to end up with a merged codebase, then it's really a waste of time to talk about integration. There is absolutely no reason to keep modeler and Layout as seperate applications. None. Zero. Zip. Nada. Butkus. There's not a single reason that anyone could give for keeping it as it is. And yet I could name several advantages to having them as a single application.

Rayek
01-17-2013, 02:21 PM
I would imagine modeler mode activated only when editing mesh objects. In layout non-destructive modifiers in a modifier stack could be applied, like a bend modifier. Inside modeler mode selections and hooks could be setup that interact with the tools in layout mode. All other tools would be moved to Layout.

At least it would allow for a start for better integration. Like hrgiger is saying: I dislike the the current two-apps approach vehemently, and it is holding back LW as a whole. It just feels awkward to me in this day and age.

And it is one of the reasons why I have not updated my 9.6 to a newer version.

lardbros
01-17-2013, 04:35 PM
You wouldn't even need separate file formats. You could just keep your organisation of a scene the way it is in Lightwave right now - except that LWOs would be replaced by simple object-only scenes (with mesh data - and possibly other components, like images - embedded). This also means you can keep bones, lights etc. in your "object" files, rather than at a higher master scene level - which makes it a lot easier to reuse objects across multiple shots/setups.

Of course, you'd need to be able to (non-destructively) override properties of these imported mini-scenes in the master. But the changes (applied as deltas - with a lot of safety checks and smart interpretation of changes) should be stored in the master scene file. So you can import and animate a rigged character in a scene, without modifying the existing pre-rigged object file.

Completely agree, we wouldn't NEED separate file formats at all... I do like the way your idea sounds. Would be lovely to be able to reference a scene file within another scene file. One containing geometry, the other lighting, staging backdrop etc. Would be even cooler if all the separate scene-files could be loaded into a nodal compositing interface, and all the passes be done using one nodal layout ;)

sukardi
01-17-2013, 04:59 PM
Basically, this is how Blender works, more or less. So, it shouldn't be impossible...

fazi69
01-17-2013, 05:08 PM
As long as workflow of modeling stay the same I can care less. But dare change it enough to make me learn and I may learn another package as well. I like it separate but understand problems for others. From what I read here and there almost all interviews with LW studios/artists underline huge advantages in separated modeling and scene setup. Especially in LWS file format and flexibility of interchangeable elements in the scene without serious work. So, as long as everything stay the same everything can change :-) I just can`t imagine that my Lightwave 14 will produce 250MB "max style" file where the same scene, object and textures in LW have 3 MB. I model cars that almost always are under 3-4 MB nut when my client convert it to MAX it will grow like cancer.

3D Kiwi
01-17-2013, 05:44 PM
Can you provide any links to these interviews stating that its better to have Lightwave split up. Thanks

3D Kiwi
01-17-2013, 05:50 PM
double post sorry

sukardi
01-17-2013, 05:53 PM
I think probably the best solution is to have LW unified but to have modeler as some sort of advanced modeling plugin for those who wants to have separate environment for fast and light modeling. After all, modeler has hardly changed in the past 10 years.

However, to bring up to date to the modern workflow, we really need to be able to access and manipulate all the modeling data, if not all the functions from a unified interface...

fazi69
01-17-2013, 05:54 PM
Can you provide any links to these interviews stating that its better to have Lightwave split up. Thanks
I can`t but I remember that it was even in some video interview. Someone explained how important LWS format was for them. ( maybe last year stream from Newtek even )
But do not worry about my preferences in separate apps.... as long as workflow and philosophy stay like it is I will adapt. But when LW become another copy of Maya/MAX/**** I will
just choose what is popular in the moment. If You must learn everything from the start there will be no difference for me what app I will learn.

cresshead
01-17-2013, 06:17 PM
are we there yet?

3dsmax, maya and softimage users would like to have alternative 3d apps to look at possibly replacing the current "over a barrel" feelings they (we) have in regards our furry accountant lead 400 pound Gorilla we have to pay each year...for a buggy app that doesn't even have a proper previewer (max).

realistically....most look at cinema4d - too expensive or modo -(not all there yet)...and lightwave...although un fairly most see lw as stuck in the 90's architecture wise being 2 apps that were based upon the amiga memory limits.

you'll get more unhappy A-Desk campers taking lightwave for a spin once it's a unified app....and that can mean a growing userbase coming from the unhappy land of "theDESK"

jwiede
01-17-2013, 07:37 PM
are we there yet?

3dsmax, maya and softimage users would like to have alternative 3d apps to look at possibly replacing the current "over a barrel" feelings they (we) have in regards our furry accountant lead 400 pound Gorilla we have to pay each year...for a buggy app that doesn't even have a proper previewer (max).

realistically....most look at cinema4d - too expensive
Given MAXON's quarter after quarter of record sales of late, apparently the price isn't as much of a deterrent to customers as some here portray it. C4D Studio upgrades with MSA aren't really that much more expensive than LW upgrades, either. The value of the upgrades for R12, R13 and R14 have all been easily worth the price, as well (IMO) -- MAXON's pace of development has been pretty impressive.

Without at least a unified application, between MAXON at the high end of pricing, and modo at the low end, Lightwave's currently facing a pretty nasty competitive situation, and it shows. Both C4D and modo offer modern, full-featured UI/UX, decent docs and educational content, etc. and that puts Lightwave at a serious disadvantage -- being able to put forth a modern, unified UI/UX would greatly help Lightwave compete more effectively against both C4D and modo.

bjornkn
01-17-2013, 07:54 PM
What exactly happened?
Why and when did they scrap (HARD)CORE, and unified app?
Are they really now building v10, 11, 11.5 and so on on that 20+ years old code?

shrox
01-17-2013, 07:56 PM
What exactly happened?
Why and when did they scrap (HARD)CORE, and unified app?
Are they really now building v10, 11, 11.5 and so on on that 20+ years old code?

Hey, I am built on 45+ year old code!

prometheus
01-17-2013, 08:06 PM
Hey, I am built on 45+ year old code!

Lol..you still have better days to be seen then if your code continous to develop:) It is possible however that the code will be messed up in the future, It happens to many dynamic events in the universe I guess..
Im two years ahead of you in my own code, It is getting blurry nowadays:)

Michael

prometheus
01-17-2013, 08:09 PM
What exactly happened?
Why and when did they scrap (HARD)CORE, and unified app?
Are they really now building v10, 11, 11.5 and so on on that 20+ years old code?

The look and feel of core was way to alianeted from what user liked mostly, I didnīt like it, but granted I miss..and think we should be having more of underlying techniques already in lw 11...such as sculpting brushes
, parametric history etc, but with basicly the general Ligthwave UI as it is now, they could expand on the UI with docking expansion rip of panels etc, but not to much change...we will see what happens.

Michael

bjornkn
01-17-2013, 08:20 PM
are we there yet?

3dsmax, maya and softimage users would like to have alternative 3d apps to look at possibly replacing the current "over a barrel" feelings they (we) have in regards our furry accountant lead 400 pound Gorilla we have to pay each year...for a buggy app that doesn't even have a proper previewer (max).

realistically....most look at cinema4d - too expensive or modo -(not all there yet)...and lightwave...although un fairly most see lw as stuck in the 90's architecture wise being 2 apps that were based upon the amiga memory limits.

you'll get more unhappy A-Desk campers taking lightwave for a spin once it's a unified app....and that can mean a growing userbase coming from the unhappy land of "theDESK"
It's a pity that this CGI market has been monopolized, with Autodesk and Adobe reigning alone, and raising their prices all the time.
I spent close to $2000 on C4D XL7 license years ago, but when I wanted to upgrade it later (to R9 or R10?) I couldn't, because I had skipped a version. :-(
Unfortunately Maxon has very unfriendly attitude towards their customers, so I'll never go back to C4D. Looks like they're feeling that they're the only real competitor to the DESK?
And I'll never go into the autoDESK land neither. Which leaves me with LW or Modo. (or Blender?).
Actually I have never really loved LW, like I did with trueSpace earlier, and SketchUp no.
But I do like the Newtek company, and really hope that they will be able to make the turn into the 21st century.
Unlike Autodesk, Adobe and Maxon, Newtek seems to care about their customers.

bjornkn
01-17-2013, 08:25 PM
Hey, I am built on 45+ year old code
Well, my own 60+ old code is getting pretty old too - but I have 2 youngish children ;-)
We all have a date limit - best before etc..

hrgiger
01-17-2013, 08:36 PM
What exactly happened?
Why and when did they scrap (HARD)CORE, and unified app?
Are they really now building v10, 11, 11.5 and so on on that 20+ years old code?

CORE was announced in January 2009 with a estimated ship date of 4th quarter 2009. Of course 2009 came and went and it was announced in December of that year that it would need additional time before it was ready. A few months later, Rob Powers joins Newtek in Febuary 2010. Fast forward to May 2010 and users are given an announcement that there is to be a change in the direction of development and that Jay Roth, head of 3D development, is leaving and that Chuck Baker and Rob Powers would be co-managing the 3D development group. While CORE builds are still being delivered during 2010, still no final release in sight. Then its announced that in the first part of 2011, the 3D group would be in meetings for planning purposes as to the direction that LightWave will take in the future. Finally on June 21st 2011, Rob announces that the CORE application will no longer be developed and that development will continue on current LightWave architecture with the assertion that even though the vehicle of delivery has changed, that the destination is still unchaged. Basically saying that all the benefits that CORE would have brought will still be brought by LightWave with the necessary architectural changes. As to the why CORE was cancelled, I could give you speculation but no real answer. Those who know aren't talking.

jwiede
01-17-2013, 10:51 PM
(Meh, post wasn't coming out the way I wanted, so I deleted it.)

Lewis
01-18-2013, 12:35 AM
double post sorry


I can`t but I remember that it was even in some video interview. Someone explained how important LWS format was for them. ( maybe last year stream from Newtek even )
But do not worry about my preferences in separate apps.... as long as workflow and philosophy stay like it is I will adapt. But when LW become another copy of Maya/MAX/**** I will
just choose what is popular in the moment. If You must learn everything from the start there will be no difference for me what app I will learn.

You can't 'coz that was/is old video and mostly outdated info. Don't mixup LWS file format with split/unified app. There is no reason why unified app couldn't have both file formats.


As long as workflow of modeling stay the same I can care less. But dare change it enough to make me learn and I may learn another package as well. I like it separate but understand problems for others. From what I read here and there almost all interviews with LW studios/artists underline huge advantages in separated modeling and scene setup. Especially in LWS file format and flexibility of interchangeable elements in the scene without serious work. So, as long as everything stay the same everything can change :-) I just can`t imagine that my Lightwave 14 will produce 250MB "max style" file where the same scene, object and textures in LW have 3 MB. I model cars that almost always are under 3-4 MB nut when my client convert it to MAX it will grow like cancer.

Filesize isn't really important here if you could nest each one into each other (like in AFX). Also i do too modeled few car and i have 100MB files in LWO format so it's not like LWO is always small format file ;). OBJ is BIG , *.MAX not so much anymore and it's not including textures inside of *.MAX file but it includes all modifiers and stuff so you can undo/turn off some modeling stuff user before you made and similar so it's very different "beast" than LW is and i.e. hence the bigger file format :).

Kaptive
01-18-2013, 01:14 AM
Personally, I quite like the seperate environments, but understand that there are advantages to unification.

However, right now, I'd just be pleased if some time based elements could be better previewed in modeler without going into layout... such as scrubbing the timeline on an envelope in the texture editor and getting feedback in the preview (especially if some form of VPR was incorporated into the preview pane).

It's no big deal and would only make a small impact on production speed personally, but it would be useful non the less.

safetyman
01-18-2013, 05:48 AM
I get the feeling that a unified app is a long long way off. Just look at some of the (wonderful IMO) updates that NT has implemented recently, like the virtual studio tools, VPR improvements, Bullet integration, etc. These things are tucked inside of Layout and dug in like a tick. Seems like modeler has been left in the dust except for a few new features that other apps have had for a long time. I was very excited when CORE was announced and it looked like LW was headed in the right direction, but for whatever reason it was scrapped, thereby cementing the separate app configuration into the foreseable future.

I'm not trying to trash LW here because it can't be beat in some areas, but I feel like we could get some of the disgruntled AD folks who are waffeling at the moment with a unified, more mainstream app.

fazi69
01-18-2013, 05:58 AM
Seems like modeler has been left in the dust except for a few new features that other apps have had for a long time.
For me modeler problem is not a lack of features but rather slow operations, not sufficient previewing options and few other things that are easy to fix in my humble opinion.
I still can, without any problems, model anything I want and I think I do this in reasonable time.
Adding LWCAD and few other simpler plugs there is not much more I can want.

dsol
01-18-2013, 06:00 AM
I'd also add - it would be pretty much essential to have the ability to open more than one scene/object (unified file) at a time, so you could truly replicate the current split workflow. This could be done by allowing multiple instances of the app to run, but that's a kludgy solution (and a waste of RAM).

Ztreem
01-18-2013, 06:20 AM
Seems like modeler has been left in the dust except for a few new features that other apps have had for a long time.

Taken from the new features site.
Modeler:
In LightWave 11.5, Modeler sees new functionality and architectural changes that are designed to improve tool interactivity and support rapid tool development.
These new tools for Modeler not only improve the system’s power, they also lay the groundwork for future third-party modeling tool development.


I think that this maybe is the most exciting news about the 11.5 update even tho I don't use modeler that much anymore. This maybe is one of many steps towards a unified app.

cresshead
01-18-2013, 07:26 AM
i'll see what 11.5 delivers as well as 3dsmax 2014///and maybe modo701
currently i model in 3dsmax and do still renders in modo...but my sci fi projects are all in lightwave!

keeping my options open!

geo_n
01-18-2013, 07:37 AM
Taken from the new features site.
Modeler:
In LightWave 11.5, Modeler sees new functionality and architectural changes that are designed to improve tool interactivity and support rapid tool development.
These new tools for Modeler not only improve the system’s power, they also lay the groundwork for future third-party modeling tool development.


I think that this maybe is the most exciting news about the 11.5 update even tho I don't use modeler that much anymore. This maybe is one of many steps towards a unified app.

Or it could mean they dumped the unified idea and going full force to updating modeller with small tools.

hrgiger
01-18-2013, 08:52 AM
Taken from the new features site.
Modeler:
In LightWave 11.5, Modeler sees new functionality and architectural changes that are designed to improve tool interactivity and support rapid tool development.
These new tools for Modeler not only improve the system’s power, they also lay the groundwork for future third-party modeling tool development.


I think that this maybe is the most exciting news about the 11.5 update even tho I don't use modeler that much anymore. This maybe is one of many steps towards a unified app.

Yeah, I'm not sure what this really says about a unified app if it says anything at all. Modeler seeing architectural changes towards rapid tool development? Ok, but why continue adding tools to modeler if we're moving towards a unified app? It seems to me that Layout would be the app that would probably be the base of a new unified app so why continue adding to modeler or bother with architectural changes to modeler if that was the case?

Hail
01-18-2013, 09:30 AM
Yeah, I'm not sure what this really says about a unified app if it says anything at all. Modeler seeing architectural changes towards rapid tool development? Ok, but why continue adding tools to modeler if we're moving towards a unified app? It seems to me that Layout would be the app that would probably be the base of a new unified app so why continue adding to modeler or bother with architectural changes to modeler if that was the case?

Perhaps they are working towards a merger of both apps.

Ztreem
01-18-2013, 01:14 PM
Yeah, I'm not sure what this really says about a unified app if it says anything at all. Modeler seeing architectural changes towards rapid tool development? Ok, but why continue adding tools to modeler if we're moving towards a unified app? It seems to me that Layout would be the app that would probably be the base of a new unified app so why continue adding to modeler or bother with architectural changes to modeler if that was the case?

True, it's not saying anything at all about a unified app and we don't know if it ever will be unified. We can only speculate and I hope that they have a bigger plan then just speeding up third party development. What if the new tools is built so that they work in layout when they in the future do some architectural changes that we don't know about?

DrStrik9
01-18-2013, 08:15 PM
What exactly happened?
Why and when did they scrap (HARD)CORE, and unified app?
Are they really now building v10, 11, 11.5 and so on on that 20+ years old code?

Two things:

(1) Newtek is not talking.

so ...

(2) We get to speculate! :D

My guess is that the CORE idea grossly underestimated the actual COST of developing a "new-from-the-ground-up" integrated app. Still guessing: when Rob came on board, he took one look at the direction they were going, and realized this gargantuan commitment of resources would eventually kill Newtek, or at the very least, kill Lightwave. With no development on the old LW, no money was coming in for around two years, except the few that bought into CORE. So they had a "hardcore" meeting (hardcore in the traditional sense) and admitted to themselves that they had made a HUGE mistake. The idea of achieving all CORE's goals using the current architecture sounds good, but in time we'll see if that idea was yet another big mistake. After that, NT went silent about development. (My view is that it's a mistake to be silent, but looking at their track record, it's a lot smarter to go silent than to continually make huge mistakes in what is promised.)

When CORE was killed, my first guess on HOW they will fulfill the promise of integrating all CORE's features within the current architecture would be to put Modeler inside Layout. (I have no idea whether that's even possible, given the chasm of programming methods between the two) but it might explain why only Layout is getting any love since then.

It's all speculation, but kinda fun, in a twisted sort of way. :)

Serling
01-18-2013, 08:49 PM
It seems to me that Layout would be the app that would probably be the base of a new unified app

Unless all the features they're currently dumping into Modeler (Genoma, etc.) indicate that Modeler actually has more growth potential as the basis for unification.

Just thinking out loud here. :D

Surrealist.
01-19-2013, 11:01 AM
I really doubt if it is in Newtek's nest interest now to worry about integration. I think it would come at the cost of features in both the short and long run.

Creating an integrated app means competing with other apps that are much further along. The resources that they have would be better spent making improvements to what is there.

I think you kind of have to step back and look at the market they are now in and ask yourself, how do they attract more costumers? Try and offer something that does the same thing as other apps that can do it already much better? I mean where is the big reason I choose LightWave for CA over Maya? I mean hypothetically, industry wise? I mean sure there are some reasons. Cost effective and so on. But going into a full on integrated app with all of the work that would take and wind up initially with something even less workable than what there is now?

Even Modo is further along than LightWave can even expect to be in 10 years. How do you compete with that? Or cinema 4D with all of its features or Houdini? Then of course there is Blender. Rigging, skinning and animation are years ahead of LightWave already. Realistically it is not even feasible for LightWave to improve in the leaps and bounds it would take to justify going head to head with the competition.

I think LightWave works as it is. And that that is what the thinking is. Take what works, make it even better, keep the attractive feature being ease of use and low cost. Keep adding more features to that to make it even more attractive. That makes sense.

It may not be state of the art. But you can do just about everything in LightWave. That is modeling effects and animation.

Lots of little improvements could be made here. Fiber FX needs some love especially with rendering. The rigging tools in Modeler are a big help. Little things. Improvements on Dynamics. Day to day functional things that would help sell it to people on the fence and keep current customers happy.

If they were going to do CORE it had to be all the way. All or nothing. But that is past.

Lewis
01-19-2013, 02:00 PM
I really doubt if it is in Newtek's nest interest now to worry about integration. I think it would come at the cost of features in both the short and long run.

Creating an integrated app means competing with other apps that are much further along. The resources that they have would be better spent making improvements to what is there.

I think you kind of have to step back and look at the market they are now in and ask yourself, how do they attract more costumers? Try and offer something that does the same thing as other apps that can do it already much better? I mean where is the big reason I choose LightWave for CA over Maya? I mean hypothetically, industry wise? I mean sure there are some reasons. Cost effective and so on. But going into a full on integrated app with all of the work that would take and wind up initially with something even less workable than what there is now?

Even Modo is further along than LightWave can even expect to be in 10 years. How do you compete with that? Or cinema 4D with all of its features or Houdini? Then of course there is Blender. Rigging, skinning and animation are years ahead of LightWave already. Realistically it is not even feasible for LightWave to improve in the leaps and bounds it would take to justify going head to head with the competition.

So they should just give up and call it a day ? By your description it seems that LW is behind everyone in this state of split app and they just should continue in that direction/way 'coz others are far ahead ? I wonder how's that going to make more sales/fresh new users ?

Surrealist.
01-19-2013, 03:02 PM
Well I think they are already doling that. So yes. That is what I am saying. Because it is a quicker more immediate path to more users. That is why we are seeing the development as it is I think. Maybe I am wrong.

But it seems that getting even the very very basic things in Layout would be a monumental task no matter how you go with it. If it wasn't, we would not even be having this discussion.

So when I am comparing to the competition I mean from a marketing perspective. I mean, look at it that way for a sec.

How are you going to market this:

"Hey everyone, NEWS BULLETIN! We now can draw a polygon in Layout! That's right. Artists can now leverage the power of drawing polygons in the very same application that they will be rendering in! AMAZING! Not only that but you can go in an edit the verts, add edges, and even... drum roll... delete faces!"

Or this:

"Hot off the press, we can now render a still image in modeler with the new MODELER CAM! That's right folks, no longer to artists have to send a model to another application to see it in its glory. We have a camera in our modeling program!"

As silly as this sounds, we can't even do this yet in Lightwave! And yeah I am being silly. But there is some truth in there.

So what I am saying is to what extent would the tools have to be developed to even be useful as a single app? Much less promotable as some kind of newsworthy feature artists are going to be attracted to. CORE was newsworthy. And also potentially powerful. I don't know.

So yeah, I am saying until they can actually put the resources to do it right, then just keep on going as they are and make gradual improvements to what is there. And I am not saying give up. They already gave up. And development shows that what I am saying is the new direction. We just don't want to hear that now because it is too soon.

Or maybe I am wrong?

fazi69
01-19-2013, 04:01 PM
Surrealist ... I do not understand Your irritation. If someone work in two separate apps like me for more than 16 years, can`t even imagine how to combine modeler with layout. On the other hand if someone needed one app to rule them all why He have LW in the first place? For me dramatic changes in core structure of any application is like dramatic changes in sequels of popular games. Game was popular for some reason and changing all leaving the name with added number on top is just silly. So let the lightwave be lightwave. If You need something in layout bad, maybe just ask for specific feature. I do not need anything in layout but any dramatic change will destroy my workflow and accumulated by years reflexes.
I`m sure that situation can be much different for chara-animators but this do not concern me ;-)

Lewis
01-19-2013, 04:08 PM
Or maybe I am wrong?

Yep, you are :D.

realgray
01-19-2013, 04:12 PM
Remember when they were working on core and they showed how to switch between separate and unified environments? I believe one day (do now know when), we will download LW the same as always but it will have a "unify" button. We will press it and a new glorious unified LW will exist. This is why they mention "architectural changes" to modeler. I believe instead of starting over with Core they are simply working backwards. Just my opinion.

Titus
01-19-2013, 04:19 PM
I don't know, the cycle of LW forum users after a new announcement is like some kind of speed user.

-OMG, this is great!
-Jumps for a couple of hours
-Man, my life sucks!
-OK move on...

Surrealist.
01-19-2013, 04:22 PM
Yep, you are :D.

lol yeah, Could be. :)


@ fazi69 I think maybe you misunderstood where I was coming from. Certainly we are agreeing already on many of your points. And I fully understand your position. You make some good arguments. :)

fazi69
01-19-2013, 04:36 PM
lol yeah, Could be. :)


@ fazi69 I think maybe you misunderstood where I was coming from. Certainly we are agreeing already on many of your points. And I fully understand your position. You make some good arguments. :)

Excellent. I can unload my antiunification bazooka now. Biological separation of species is needed ! Every zookeeper knows that we, modelers and those pesky animators can`t live in the same cage ;-)
But do not listen to me, I`m such orthodox that even HUB connecting this two worlds is disabled in my rig.

MarcusM
01-19-2013, 04:51 PM
But do not listen to me, I`m such orthodox that even HUB connecting this two worlds is disabled in my rig. - Can't believe this man :p

I would like to have possibility to send object from one opened Modeler to few Layouts :) Now it's just 1 to 1.

hrgiger
01-19-2013, 05:25 PM
Richard, I understand what you're saying but I think that if Newtek were to abandon the idea of integration and just focus on pumping new features into LightWave, then they would just be shooting themselves in the foot in the long run. Features are a short term game which will be old news by next week. You add feature X, and then pretty soon, every other app out there has feature X. It seems to me that focusing solely on adding new featuers is like putting a band-aid on a wound that will simply not stop bleeding and it is no way for LightWave to project into the future if they hope to stay viable several years down the road.

I think what the focus should be is putting the architecture in place to allow for substantial application growth. You improve the SDK to where it has no known limits, 3rd parties can add the functionality that Newtek might not add. You improve communication between different areas of the program allowing access to everything from everywhere(yes, plugging full nodal access here), then you give users a chance to use the features that are already present in limitless ways. You continue adding I/O possibilities to allow LightWave to work in as many pipelines as possible, put the structure in place to allow users to create custom tools from different components of the program...

I also think that LightWave would do a lot of good to get away from the stigma of being the only two headed application out there. It just illustrates all the things that are just not possible or options in LightWave.

Surrealist.
01-19-2013, 06:07 PM
Yep as a user I agree completely.

But also realize that what you are saying is more or less what I am saying. Essentially with one small difference. Time. I am putting a time and energy qualification on it. Something has to give. Because what you are talking about accomplishing will take 5 to 10 years to get to a unified app. No, that's wrong. That was my estimate for core. More like 10 years actually for CORE to work.

But we are talking about doing what they were going to do with CORE however still burdened with the reality that they'll have to keep doing what they have been doing at the same time which is include new features in LightWave. That was a plan anyway to eventually port it over. However now they are burdened additionally with the old code. So I figure to do that, keep LightWave relevant (upgrade bullet, rendering, modeling tools just as they have been) will take more like 15 years to get to a unified app. At the current rate of development.

So my question is, can they afford to do both? Will it be possible? And I can not say they even have the view of the long run. If they did, they'd not have stopped CORE.

I am saying to do all that they are promising, all that we have wanted, with the current resources is unrealistic. The only thing that would change that reality - the time involved -is a way to throw more money at it now. A merger with a large company?

I don't know. So I simply pose the question, in view of my belief that there is far more work involved than we are thinking, will a unified app be the thing that gives?

I am not saying that is ideal. But in view of the speed of development, I could see them going that way.

I agree with you. Your outline is how it should go. And could go with more people hired on to speed it up. A lot more people. That's just my opinion....

If they were to pull it off that would be a miracle. And my hat would be off.

geo_n
01-19-2013, 06:20 PM
Well I think they are already doling that. So yes. That is what I am saying. Because it is a quicker more immediate path to more users. That is why we are seeing the development as it is I think. Maybe I am wrong.

But it seems that getting even the very very basic things in Layout would be a monumental task no matter how you go with it. If it wasn't, we would not even be having this discussion.

So when I am comparing to the competition I mean from a marketing perspective. I mean, look at it that way for a sec.

How are you going to market this:

"Hey everyone, NEWS BULLETIN! We now can draw a polygon in Layout! That's right. Artists can now leverage the power of drawing polygons in the very same application that they will be rendering in! AMAZING! Not only that but you can go in an edit the verts, add edges, and even... drum roll... delete faces!"

Or this:

"Hot off the press, we can now render a still image in modeler with the new MODELER CAM! That's right folks, no longer to artists have to send a model to another application to see it in its glory. We have a camera in our modeling program!"

As silly as this sounds, we can't even do this yet in Lightwave! And yeah I am being silly. But there is some truth in there.

So what I am saying is to what extent would the tools have to be developed to even be useful as a single app? Much less promotable as some kind of newsworthy feature artists are going to be attracted to. CORE was newsworthy. And also potentially powerful. I don't know.

So yeah, I am saying until they can actually put the resources to do it right, then just keep on going as they are and make gradual improvements to what is there. And I am not saying give up. They already gave up. And development shows that what I am saying is the new direction. We just don't want to hear that now because it is too soon.

Or maybe I am wrong?

All I know is that its not that hard to add a modelling toolset in something like layout. I've been involved with developing a new 3d app for the past 4 months which is unknown yet. In that time the guy doing the mesh editor added most of the tools and workflow I requested. Most of them mimic lightwave modeller tools with some 3dmax thrown in. The mesh editor code seems it can be worked on separately like a module or (api?). The app itself is all node based. At one time I requested the whole coordinate system be changed. I didn't even know there was a right hand and left hand coordinate system for 3d apps. Lol. Took less than a week of coding but it literally changed the app base system. But they did it.
So I don't think it takes monumental resources to do something with text and code. If NT want to do it they can. There's no choice really unless they don't want new users(cash!). Old non-lw and new users aren't interested with modeller and layout separate. And no this is not the same as zbrush being separate to the host 3d app.

Lewis
01-20-2013, 04:33 AM
So I don't think it takes monumental resources to do something with text and code. If NT want to do it they can. There's no choice really unless they don't want new users(cash!). Old non-lw and new users aren't interested with modeller and layout separate. And no this is not the same as zbrush being separate to the host 3d app.

Agreed, my point exactly, separated app in long run will NOT give them more users (or to say it better not enough new users). Heck even original LW devs thought separation must be stopped, that has to count for something - right ?

Surrealist.
01-20-2013, 05:16 AM
Absolutely true.

The question remains. Can they do it with this method? And is probably the only place I disagree. I base my entire recent view on the practicality of it happening with this new direction, not whether I think it should or not. We can sit around and proclaim all we want and agree all we want about how vital it is. or point to the Modo team and all of that.

But they have to do it.

And I simply look at the time they have spent trying, and I say no. ( mean not very quickly anyway) I don' think it is really that simple. If it was, we would not be sitting here speculating.

I mean, I am wondering if that is what is occurring to them. Make the best out of a bad situation and keep improving. That an effort to integrate would be so great that it would take away from other things they have to do just to keep afloat in the mean time.

But then again maybe I am wrong.

But that is my view in a nutshell.

Lewis
01-20-2013, 05:25 AM
I was against CORE shutdown strongly i said many times that updating old code would last much longer and who knows will it even work as it should be due many old problems/dependencies and what not, NT said its just a text anything can be updated and basically they said they CAN integrate it despite first two "rewrites" failed to do that (LW 6.0 and 9.0 were rewrite tries). Now it's up to them to prove it's possible. It's around three years are already gone since CORE shutdown and they said they learned a lot form that "experiment" what will help them to make it right this time. So only thing I'm against is when users says we don't need that. Sadly most of time users happy with separated app is those who didn't use other unified app and they instantly thing unified app will make LW completely different to use (CORE had workspace so if you wanted to just model you could just model without timeline or any animating or deformers or anything else in view) to understand full benefit of unified app (not pointing at anyone specific here).

geo_n
01-20-2013, 06:38 AM
Make the best out of a bad situation and keep improving. That an effort to integrate would be so great that it would take away from other things they have to do just to keep afloat in the mean time.


That's just a very very bad idea from a business standpoint especially if you're way behind the competition. One can only afford to take things slow if you're in the lead.

Surrealist.
01-20-2013, 07:15 AM
I was against CORE shutdown strongly i said many times that updating old code would last much longer and who knows will it even work as it should be due many old problems/dependencies and what not, NT said its just a text anything can be updated and basically they said they CAN integrate it despite first two "rewrites" failed to do that (LW 6.0 and 9.0 were rewrite tries). Now it's up to them to prove it's possible. It's around three years are already gone since CORE shutdown and they said they learned a lot form that "experiment" what will help them to make it right this time. So only thing I'm against is when users says we don't need that. Sadly most of time users happy with separated app is those who didn't use other unified app and they instantly thing unified app will make LW completely different to use (CORE had workspace so if you wanted to just model you could just model without timeline or any animating or deformers or anything else in view) to understand full benefit of unified app (not pointing at anyone specific here).


Yep, I am with you on pretty much everything there. All I have been using in the past 4-5 years is unified apps. Blender, Softimage and now very recently I am training in Maya. I understood the concept before but it was not until I started using a unified app every day that I really got it.

Have to wait and see what happens.

Surrealist.
01-20-2013, 07:34 AM
That's just a very very bad idea from a business standpoint especially if you're way behind the competition. One can only afford to take things slow if you're in the lead.

True. This is of course based on your belief that it would not take so long or be so hard to do. This is the only fundamental point we disagree on I think.

If my suspicion is correct, then they really are not in a position with a lot of choice in the matter. The only answer is to throw money at it or just go at it methodically. And the latter is exactly what they are doing. They don't seem to be in that big of a rush. And they are not making any specific time promises other than the initial 3 year plan. I don't think that is realistic at all given what they have accomplished thus far.

Time will tell one way or the other. For NewTek's sake, I hope you are right.

dsol
01-20-2013, 07:52 AM
The only thing that would change that reality - the time involved -is a way to throw more money at it now.

With greatest respect, you're completely off the mark there. Software Development is one area where throwing money at it doesn't guarantee anything. A small, but talented team run under good management with coherent and well thought-out design goals can accomplish far more than I think you realise.

I remember meeting Jim Plant a few years ago, and he said that adding modeler tools to layout wasn't that hard (I think it got held up by some legal concerns, now dealt with). I think the reason they haven't done it so far in the 10-11 cycle is that the underlying architecture of LW *is* being rebuilt - to incorporate a new nodal scene graph format (from Core) as well as adding the other modern niceties of competing 3D apps - a unified (and usable) undo stack, history, modifier stack, referencing etc.

Adding modeler tools to layout using the "old" LW9.x codebase wouldn't make any sense, as it would just mean even more work integrating them when they finally do "switch the engine" to the new underlying architecture. Right now, I reckon the "architectural changes" they've mentioned on the LW11.5 page are more to do with putting API hooks in place on new and existing code, to handle the switch to the new format (when it's ready).

I think LW12 is still a year away at least, but I think it's going to be the version where this stuff finally happens. Unless, of course, money gets *really* tight and they have to bung out an interim update under the "12" moniker. But given that LW11.5 is a free update (which for most other apps would be a full paid update) - I don't think that's going to be an issue.

Surrealist.
01-20-2013, 08:58 AM
A small, but talented team run under good management with coherent and well thought-out design goals can accomplish far more than I think you realise. I am assuming this. I would only hope this to be true.

I am looking at how long it will take for said small team to do all of that. If they hired more talented, well organized, and managed team members under a clear goal. It would happen faster.

At this point faster is good. I don't think they have enough people to do it all and get enough of it done within the 3 year projection. So yeah, they should throw more money at the good plan to get it done faster.

Otherwise I think it is going to be a long haul. And my benchmark for that is as follows:

Fully integrated app. Period. (Not some transitional place in between) With everything fully functional.
Ability to paint verts, edit meshes while posing bones.
An entire new bone and skinning system
A completely revamped animation system - node based I presume
Fully functional and robust dynamics system tied in with animation constraints and bones
Completely revamped particle and fluids system
A robust set of modeling tools (tied in with nodes) that can use all of the constraints and deformers in the animation system. Basically everything animatable
A full set of UV tools
A revamped and integrated nodes rendering and shading network
A new hair system
Rendering enhancements


If what people want is for LightWave to compete with other apps out there now, that is what it would take at the very least and I probably left some things out.

At the current rate, that is going to take a long time to do.

That's what I think.

Other than that I am just kind of speculating. Kinda sounds like you have a good inside view. And if it is true what you say, then definitely with this team, it is a ways off. Not around the corner to 12 or 13.

So this is one of those exceptions to the rule where throwing money at it would be the thing. Probably 3 to 4 X the team to be conservative. For example, bring in specialists some of the areas that need to be built from the ground up and so on.

dsol
01-20-2013, 09:59 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mythical_Man-Month

GraphXs
01-20-2013, 10:37 AM
I think they will start small with adding edit mesh functions in layout and maybe weighting functions. I believe a model will still have to start in modeler until layout gets all the tools needed. Im fine with that and hope it starts with 12. One thing I don't want is layout to become bloated like Max can be. I do hope the Lwo format still exsist for the models. I don't care about lights be stored with the mesh. We will still have the lws file type. I just want refereing and material and scene States and save selection IO. I use lightwave in many Pipelines as well as by itself and IMO if lwg focuses on just the missing functions and starts the broad strokes with basic modeling in 12 lightwave most users will be happy.

Rayek
01-20-2013, 02:13 PM
I tend to agree with Surrealist: it is a monumental task. A good case example: the Blender code refactoring/modernization from 2.49 to 2.5. It is a small miracle and a lot of sweat and tears, persistence and dedication of a couple of visionary people (mainly Ton Roosendaal as the driving factor) that made that happen. And although a lot of new features have been added, there are STILL some things missing from the old 2.49 version, and the main thing holding back Blender right now is still going to have to be addressed now: the dependency graph. Which is the next step in Blender's development - once that is done: sky's the limit.

Now, I think Lightwave's case is an even tougher nut to crack, since it is based on two different code bases: Modeler and Layout. Blender's modernization did not have that additional hurdle: it was a reasonably consolidated code base to begin with. Still, it took almost six years to get from planning to the first beta version of 2.5. Six years of Google Summer of Code sprints, lots of volunteers, two open movies with constant development, and during that time new features were added as well (for better or for worse, depending who you ask ;-)

TrueSpace tried to transition to a modern version, and it caused the company to go belly up. The result was a fragmented application with an "old mode" and "new mode".

Resources is the key word: the Blender Foundation has a lot of resources to fall back to, although most of those may be fluid and quite loose in nature. Lots of volunteering, universities using Blender for all sorts of work, donations, public funding, and so on, all under the premise of sharing new developed features and/or improving existing ones. Open development, which, for the most part has worked to Blender's advantage. Students are given the opportunity to work on code for their theses and projects, for example.

Lightwave's development is a complete black box to me: I do not know what the devs are up to, what to expect for the next version. Sometimes a bit of the veil is lifted, but honestly I wish we as a user base had more of a connection with Newtek. Their business model seems stuck in the past at times, with little social interaction possible or happening between them and their users. At least, that is my feeling.
With Photoline (my Photoshop replacement since 5 months) the betas are available for me to try out, a discussion between devs and users is happening and welcomed on their forums: again, open lines of communication. I like that. So far 8(!) of my requests have been implemented (EXR multi-laye support!). Newtek's communication with its users has been mostly quite awkward in nature, even to the point of embarrassing. It does not help in this case.

Anyway, digressing here. I liked the idea of CORE (as for myself I absolutely dislike the two headed LW, and mainly stay in Layout) - but I suppose it's the chicken and the egg (and I concur with Surrealist): completely focusing on redesigning/refactoring Lightwave's base will not sell new licenses; adding new features to the current older code base will lead to a dead end in a couple of years. What to do?

Rayek
01-20-2013, 02:35 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mythical_Man-Month

:-) +1

How things can go so wrong: http://www.n2op.com/jim/daikatana.html

jwiede
01-20-2013, 08:32 PM
:-) +1

How things can go so wrong: http://www.n2op.com/jim/daikatana.html
To be fair, successful game development has requirements far beyond app development. Even a perfectly-functional game software infrastructure is only the first step to a successful game, whereas apps' requirements are much much more self-contained. Games essentially take all the requirements of a successful app, frequently add many of the story and characterization requirements of a successful movie, and then additionally throw in requirements for engrossing play mechanics, etc. There are levels of interaction between issues in software development and story/play development in games that just have no equivalents in development of application software.

Rayek
01-20-2013, 09:17 PM
Yes, I am aware of those (developer of small mobile games myself) - I just thought it'd be interesting to add. Aside from the fact that games development is an art in itself, what I thought most interesting is how strong an influence a figurehead can have on development (John Carmack, Ton Roosendaal, etc.).




To be fair, successful game development has requirements far beyond app development. Even a perfectly-functional game software infrastructure is only the first step to a successful game, whereas apps' requirements are much much more self-contained. Games essentially take all the requirements of a successful app, frequently add many of the story and characterization requirements of a successful movie, and then additionally throw in requirements for engrossing play mechanics, etc. There are levels of interaction between issues in software development and story/play development in games that just have no equivalents in development of application software.

DigitalSorcery8
01-20-2013, 11:40 PM
I also think that LightWave would do a lot of good to get away from the stigma of being the only two headed application out there. It just illustrates all the things that are just not possible or options in LightWave.
Not to mention the fact that in every other competing software forum, most say they won't even look at Lightwave until it DOES become a unified application. When that happens, they will BELIEVE that Lightwave is moving into the 21st century. I used to be against the unified app, but after listening to all of the positive reasons why... there is zero doubt in my mind that THAT is the way to go. I certainly hope Newtek does move in that direction. Problem is, until they come out and SAY that that's what they will indeed be doing (AND show that they are doing it), there is no way for us to know. They certainly can't say now "but we've said before that LW WILL be a unified app" since they've changed course before without letting us know until much later. "Oops, didn't we tell ya... we changed our minds."

Time will tell.

hrgiger
01-21-2013, 02:19 AM
Problem is, until they come out and SAY that that's what they will indeed be doing (AND show that they are doing it), there is no way for us to know. They certainly can't say now "but we've said before that LW WILL be a unified app" since they've changed course before without letting us know until much later. "Oops, didn't we tell ya... we changed our minds."

Time will tell.

Yup, exactly what I fear. I'm not sure which is worse either. The fact that they used to communicate with us more and changed course, or the fact that they don't communicate with us at all anymore.

Waves of light
01-21-2013, 02:25 AM
IMO we are way off a unified app, given the number of software developers at NT, which I'm guessing is not a huge number.

If they are going to produce a unified app, it would have to mean starting from scratch, aka CORE, or resurrecting CORE which NT will not want to do as they spent money and time erasing that development period from our memory banks. They could try to develop a unified app whilst still producing regular and .5 releases of LW, but look how long CORE was in development and that was when that was the focus, using up all of the development department. They need revenue to continue developing and that is only going to come from LW11 and LW12 sales. With that in mind, I cannot see a unified app until at least LW13, if that is the path NT want to go down.

As for whether or not a unified app is a good or bad thing, well that's been debated for a long, long time. I don't really care to be honest now, as long as the resulting software allows me to finish my projects, hit my deadlines and doesn't have a massive price increase.

Ricky.

bobakabob
01-21-2013, 04:34 AM
IMO we are way off a unified app, given the number of software developers at NT, which I'm guessing is not a huge number.

As for whether or not a unified app is a good or bad thing, well that's been debated for a long, long time. I don't really care to be honest now, as long as the resulting software allows me to finish my projects, hit my deadlines and doesn't have a massive price increase.

Ricky.

Unification is a good long term goal but the reality is it doesn't appear to be happening anytime soon. Users are spoilt for choice regarding 3d apps out there to invest in as an alternative if unification is so vital for a project. The only catch, Blender aside, is the expense of buying into Autodesk. Like many I was disappointed when Core's progressive vision was cancelled but now we're back to reality unification can wait. I've used Max and Softimage over the years, the former with frustration, the latter with barely contained awe, but keep coming back to Lightwave because it's a dependable workhorse with a superb renderer. Lightwave's Dev team seem genuinely enthusiastic about their direction. 11.5 may not have unification but has some much anticipated and very useable looking features.

Yog
01-21-2013, 06:38 AM
Problem is, until they come out and SAY that that's what they will indeed be doing (AND show that they are doing it), there is no way for us to know. They certainly can't say now "but we've said before that LW WILL be a unified app" since they've changed course before without letting us know until much later. "Oops, didn't we tell ya... we changed our minds.".
As most politicians know, stating a fact will lose you a vote, waterver you state someone will disagree with it, therefore it is far better to provide something, vague, non-comittal and prefereably without being tied to a timescale. For example, "Our eventual aim is to provide all the benefits of a unified application, whilst being mindful to retain the current familar and easy workflow".

Another one that gets toted by most companies when users complain about a lackluster feature list is, "We decided, after listening to our user base, to concentrate this release on stability and changes under the hood that will make advances in future releases easier and far faster". Unfortunately you can almost garantee that the same company will say the same thing during the next version release.

Is it just me, or is the increase in the quality of spin (double talk), inversly proportional to the quality of the software releases ? :D

Lightwolf
01-21-2013, 06:41 AM
To be fair, successful game development has requirements far beyond app development.
And vice versa though... Games users (and developers ;) ) don't need to live with design decisions made decades ago.

Cheers,
Mike

jwiede
01-21-2013, 07:08 AM
And vice versa though... Games users (and developers ;) ) don't need to live with design decisions made decades ago.
True enough, though I've heard such complaints from friends who do games at big publishers w.r.t. engine infrastructures at times. Not every title starts with a shiny, everything-they-want game engine as infrastructure.

Lightwolf
01-21-2013, 07:14 AM
True enough, though I've heard such complaints from friends who do games at big publishers w.r.t. engine infrastructures at times. Not every title starts with a shiny, everything-they-want game engine as infrastructure.
No, of course not. But the requirements are still quite different. Especially if you look at tools within the pipeline. There's a massive difference between in-house tools and products for the public for example. A difference that roughly doubles the development effort.

Cheers,
Mike

cresshead
01-21-2013, 07:16 AM
someone list the benefits of 2 apps rather than 1 unified app?

why isn't maya 2 apps?
why isn't 3dsmax 2 apps?
why isn't blender 2 apps?
why isn't modo 2 apps?
why isn't softimage 2 apps?
why isn't cinema 2 apps?
why isn't houdini 2 apps?

why is lightwave 2 apps?....still

come on newtek...get with it!...join the gang!

Lightwolf
01-21-2013, 07:28 AM
why is lightwave 2 apps?....still

Because it's not trivial to do... or even design. Even if you re-write (I certainly think Core fell short in that regard as well).

Btw, the predecessor to Maya was multiple apps.

Softimage was the industry first to be integrated.

Cheers,
Mike

Lewis
01-21-2013, 07:33 AM
someone list the benefits of 2 apps rather than 1 unified app?
..
why is lightwave 2 apps?....still

come on newtek...get with it!...join the gang!

Answer is simple : Legacy :D

zarti
01-21-2013, 07:37 AM
here you have another 2-app example ..


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSBefGi7F-Y




.cheers

jwiede
01-21-2013, 08:11 AM
No, of course not. But the requirements are still quite different. Especially if you look at tools within the pipeline. There's a massive difference between in-house tools and products for the public for example. A difference that roughly doubles the development effort.
At least double the effort, IME, often more if the for-public tool app is particularly complex requiring supporting educational content, etc. Anyway, we're in general agreement.

Surrealist.
01-21-2013, 11:22 AM
The real answer I think to why it is still two apps is pretty much economics. And that is till the problem now. It isn't that Newtek does not see the light. They can't afford to. The real reason why core was abandoned. And the real reason why these forced unrealistic time predictions. This is true now. It is like they can not afford to look past 1 to 2 years. 3 Years is like an eternity. Because they have a product in its current state that is selling and that has a user base that is depending on it and any upgrades to stay with it. They can not afford to stop offering upgrades. And this explains why we have seen these various PR and marketing schemes all centered around selling what they have. First, CORE membership and regular LightWave upgrades. Then Core as a part of the 3 App suite and now, just LightWave with great new improvements ahead. Nothing has changed that. It really is kinda like Rob Powers said. They are not really changing much - from that perspective. They still have to develop LightWave. And the gap between LightWave as 2 apps and LightWave as 1 app. is Vast.

It does not matter who has ever believed or stated different for whatever reasons it was stated. This is the true fact. The real reason I think they had to stop CORE was because it was started under the pressure of this need to have a fast turnaround. I don't think it was malicious or short sighted. It was just pure economic pressure. And in a way we have to give these guys some slack. We have been demanding this for so long. And finally they decided to start doing something about it. But the reality about this economic pressure was always there. And so they made some mistakes. We all do. I think it was a mistake not to be forthright with themselves first and then try and sell the pressure to us. Because that was just a train wreck waiting to happen as soon as they involved the community on that level.

I think and thought at the time, that they should have trusted us more. They should have had more faith in the community I think. And with that would have come a straight up talk about what was involved to make this happen. And invited us to give feeback given the realities of what this would mean in terms of time and effort. Like I say I don't think it was malicious or even shortsighted. I think it was just pressure. And they were too close to it to step back and realize that we would have been with them on it had we known all of the facts. This is why, economically, the current track makes sense. Because it keeps them viable and keeps lots of LightWave people happy. It won't turn LightWave into a 1 app program over night. But if they are indeed rewriting the code and if that is enabling more tools, then that is a good long range plan. Considering of course, that some merger is not afoot or they happen come into some lottery cash.

Funny I was just kind of musing on it and realized that maybe they don't have the resources to write a unified app and keep going. But in hindsight it is really neither here nor there. Whatever they do, they have to keep going. And if it means very slowly, and methodically rewriting and improving, then that is what it will take. Because at least now the pressure is off. But I think it would be wise for people using LightWave to embrace it as it is and take the bits and pieces as they come. My biggest concern would be that they try and push the one app aspect too soon. But I don't think they can afford to do that and release an application that does less in terms of the overall tools. They have to keep adding functionality to the package and not release an unusable beginning to a one app. I think that is just basic finance 101. So unless they want to make it happen much faster by some other plan, which would mean more resources, I don't think it can go faster, just because it "should". That would be disaster. This is not ideal of course. But I think it is the way that it is.

hrgiger
01-21-2013, 01:12 PM
I don't see why the CORE route was so bad. It's not like LightWave would have become useless if it was not actively being developed (as in new features). They could have continued providing support as well as bug fixing while they invested the bulk of development manpower towards building the CORE app. People who depend on modeler/Layout for their work could continue to use it all the while gaining some new benefits from CORE. It also would have a allowed a good transitionary opportunity. You could continue to use LightWave as it is while getting to know a new unified app.

Can someone explain to me how it is easier to restructure an application that has seen years of development to be a seperated environment, rather then building one from scratch with the groundwork laid out to be unified? That one still eludes me.

DigitalSorcery8
01-21-2013, 03:04 PM
Can someone explain to me how it is easier to restructure an application that has seen years of development to be a seperated environment, rather then building one from scratch with the groundwork laid out to be unified? That one still eludes me.
They can't. Because it wouldn't be true. :)

I think we would all agree with Surrealist above, it's a matter of economics. If Newtek had the money to have a LARGE programming staff, then they could continue developing CORE along with standard LW. But since we know they didn't, economics plays the deciding role here. Not much we can do except either go along for the ride or choose another app.

ncr100
01-21-2013, 04:53 PM
Can someone explain to me how it is easier to restructure an application that has seen years of development to be a seperated environment, rather then building one from scratch with the groundwork laid out to be unified? That one still eludes me.

I will give it a stab (Nick climbs on his on high chair): It's often easier (let me put quotes around that..."easier") since you (as a software development organization) pay less in terms of fewer brand new bugs you have an opportunity to write if you just modify the existing application. Writing anything new will result in imperfections...bad assumptions or out of date knowledge being codified will create bugs in spite of having the best intentions. A complete rewrite should take place only if the current code has ABSOLUTELY NO HOPE (Nick is shifting around now, adjusting his position, agitated on his high chair) of being navigable by the programmers.

Essentially the point is that the prior codebase is stable - it's a survivor of YEARS (Nick's eyebrows raise) of bashing, and the recipient of tens of thousands of bugfixes.

New groundwork certainly means new code, but by ALL MEANS (Nick waves fingers wildly atop his chair, now wobbling) try to keep the old code...it's solid.

If, on the other hand, it's a leaky pile of feces...then yeah perhaps flush that crap out the airlock and lay out a new app...but it's not the case here AFAIK, w/ LW. :)

@HRGiger is that convincing? I can restate it if not.

ncr100
01-21-2013, 05:00 PM
If Newtek had the money to have a LARGE programming staff, then they could continue developing CORE along with standard LW. But since we know they didn't, economics plays the deciding role here.

LARGE can, and often does mean you will simply create LOTS AND LOTS of unfocused crap. With a small team you have focus. With Large you must have administration, and different risks than even exist for Small. Large could just mean a CORE product that ends up being a bizarre offering, not Lightwave-ey at all since the authors are on a separate team than the ones who lovingly create and support the product we all are familiar with.

CORE could be being developed inside our current Lightwave right now, just hidden ... not exposed, and we wouldn't even know it. Communication pathways that are tested, but lie dormant in 11.0 / 11.5, but are being worked on to facilitate components talking to each other to grant us the killer interactive features we saw in our CORE beta's circa 2009 / 2010. It's like having a second circulatory system. Until it's connected to something (in LW 12? wishful thinking) it can safely hang out unused, but still be actively under development behind the greeble-covered doors of NewTek's 3d Labs.

hrgiger
01-21-2013, 05:10 PM
I will give it a stab (Nick climbs on his on high chair): It's often easier (let me put quotes around that..."easier") since you (as a software development organization) pay less in terms of fewer brand new bugs you have an opportunity to write if you just modify the existing application. Writing anything new will result in imperfections...bad assumptions or out of date knowledge being codified will create bugs in spite of having the best intentions. A complete rewrite should take place only if the current code has ABSOLUTELY NO HOPE (Nick is shifting around now, adjusting his position, agitated on his high chair) of being navigable by the programmers.

Essentially the point is that the prior codebase is stable - it's a survivor of YEARS (Nick's eyebrows raise) of bashing, and the recipient of tens of thousands of bugfixes.

New groundwork certainly means new code, but by ALL MEANS (Nick waves fingers wildly atop his chair, now wobbling) try to keep the old code...it's solid.

If, on the other hand, it's a leaky pile of feces...then yeah perhaps flush that crap out the airlock and lay out a new app...but it's not the case here AFAIK, w/ LW. :)

@HRGiger is that convincing? I can restate it if not.

I have to admit I'm not entirely convinced of that. I mean, how reliable can the old code base be if they're restructing everything to be integrated? I think that to change the way LightWave works internally, they're going to break a hell of a lot of things along the way and probably have to end up recoding a lot of features to work with the new internal system. You speak of bugfixes as if they're little contained islands of trouble within the program and once something has been fixed, it doesn't get broken again...It's not like bugs are always a result of a faulty feautre, sometimes its just a matter of how data is passed in or out of that feature. And if they change the way LightWave works to be integrated, I see a lot of features needing to be adapted. And that just seems like a lot of unnecessary work as opposed to creating a unified app from the beginning and then writing the tools to work off that new codebase.

DigitalSorcery8
01-21-2013, 05:32 PM
LARGE can, and often does mean you will simply create LOTS AND LOTS of unfocused crap. With a small team you have focus. With Large you must have administration, and different risks than even exist for Small. Large could just mean a CORE product that ends up being a bizarre offering, not Lightwave-ey at all since the authors are on a separate team than the ones who lovingly create and support the product we all are familiar with.
I would agree with this, but you can still have a large crew - but split into CORE and legacy Lightwave. LARGE CAN... but does not have to be. If they had a new crew working on CORE and the base crew working on LW legacy... it could work. The problem comes down to economics as previously discussed.


CORE could be being developed inside our current Lightwave right now, just hidden ... not exposed, and we wouldn't even know it. Communication pathways that are tested, but lie dormant in 11.0 / 11.5, but are being worked on to facilitate components talking to each other to grant us the killer interactive features we saw in our CORE beta's circa 2009 / 2010. It's like having a second circulatory system. Until it's connected to something (in LW 12? wishful thinking) it can safely hang out unused, but still be actively under development behind the greeble-covered doors of NewTek's 3d Labs.
You may or may not be right. The problem I see is that it will take quite a bit longer to unify simply because you are trying to work new code into legacy code or rewriting the old code to work with new situations. I would agree with those who believe that it will take longer to do it that way as opposed to creating new code from scratch. Remember, you STILL have the old code to review and see what would work and what wouldn't with the new code. Of course all of this does't make any difference anyway. We have zero say in anything. You can have a thousand more people who agree with a "CORE-route" but a couple of people at the top of LW development will overrule anything. Hopefully things are moving in the right direction.

ncr100
01-21-2013, 06:06 PM
I have to admit I'm not entirely convinced of that. I mean, how reliable can the old code base be if they're restructing everything to be integrated? I think that to change the way LightWave works internally, they're going to break a hell of a lot of things along the way and probably have to end up recoding a lot of features to work with the new internal system.

^^ Yeah that is totally true. They'll break tons of stuff.

FYI there's a good term for the "rewrite ALL the codes" idea: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenfield_project - you just write and write until your heart sings.

You've got me - I only know that LW does work today and NewTek does release semi-regular revisions. Given that I feel it's 'reliable enough'. So, they might break it along the way, but if they're careful they won't completely shatter it...that would be ... unfortunate, and a mistake.

If you were a software development manager, you'd want to deliver on-time and under-budget. The decision of which way to go can be a mathematical / managerial one. Rewrite vs edit cost analyses can include a super-wild guess as to the competency of your software development team - its ability to manage a rising, overwhelming complexity, as they make phased, transformative changes. You want to weigh that (multiply the costs) along with a rough estimate of the number of changes that will be necessary to wiggle your code into being how you want it to look.

The thing I weigh when considering edit vs rewrite from scratch is: how much of a paradigm-shift is the restructure? I've gone through "edit-type" restructures which effected every line, and I was still happy I had not started rewriting from scratch. My mind did not have to think all that hard, is why I was happy. Coding can be a largely mechanical process...not at all creative. (Depends on the job...of course.) Doing a refactor...like is required for PART of CORE...is generally a mechanical job. Mechanical can be a mentally unchallenging ... and hence the "easy" course. So I might choose that instead of a creative re-think of my assumptions, which is prone to me making judgement errors. :)

Paradigm shifts are nasty, let me try and describe: A case where it wouldn't be right to rewrite is if you were porting your code to work on the Playstation 3 - an operating environment with a uniquely parallel (link one (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Task_parallelism) and two (http://kotaku.com/5889410/playstation-4-ditching-the-cell-processor-sources-say-which-leads-to-some-wild-theories), plus a bonus misdirection (http://blog.us.playstation.com/2007/06/13/is-the-ps3-really-harder-to-develop-for/) from Sony) CPU. Yet again Sony made a CRAAAZY piece of hardware (got to find the link for you of a Sony exec literally apologizes to developers for the Playstation 2 hardware at some conference...) where doing ANYTHING with any kind of optimal performance / speediness requires you to break apart your logic in very uncomfortable paradigm-shifting parallel ways (I do not understand the info at this link https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:CQJMMXEhMOAJ:www.cs.vt.edu/~filip/papers/ppopp07.pdf+&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESgko0XsLCkIUjBKr9o-RIt9bnjLU_WTOnatObUzpPmGava4dlrCtf0JZJBwSLh1XerUSp 5UX6nnXg1CZrdHN-Scp5aT1Jvo-MxLwYLwobkMxRYwdZMLlKVFhmySD8x3WN7sERES&sig=AHIEtbRPd34bHsb_5I5rq4_wqBjPZgGWfA but the sheer number of crazy diagrams convinces me that Sony was evil to release a videogame console with that CPU as the heart of the product.) If your code was not already "highly parallel" in nature you'd have to write, very creatively, a WHOLE BUNCH of new code. Paradigm shifts can suck for that reason.

For NewTek to write "CORE" (Nick darts a look at his high chair) with its expected cool-new-interconnectedness they'd need to a) update the communication pathways into and out from all their plugins...much like they MIGHT have had to do when they added their Nodal GUI...and b) make any changes necessary inside the plugins themselves to support the in/out pathways' new features. This doesn't seem like a paradigm shift, more like an extension...adding natural gas lines with all the stop-cocks and related appliances to your home for instance.


You speak of bugfixes as if they're little contained islands of trouble within the program and once something has been fixed, it doesn't get broken again...It's not like bugs are always a result of a faulty feautre, sometimes its just a matter of how data is passed in or out of that feature. And if they change the way LightWave works to be integrated, I see a lot of features needing to be adapted. And that just seems like a lot of unnecessary work as opposed to creating a unified app from the beginning and then writing the tools to work off that new codebase.

Ideally they are. If not then you've got a complexity problem that you'd benefit from strategizing on how to avoid being bitten by first, before you actually go and fix the bug. Otherwise you pay BIGTIME when the complexity hits you (surprise!) when you're 10 months down the road of a 12 month development cycle.

If I understand you correctly, about the lots of features needing adaptation, the thing is for either route the same work will need to happen. The difference is on one route they have a stable base from which they start off, and from the other they are inventing their base as they proceed. Invention is mentally more challenging than mechanical rework. Disassemble vs Reassemble a car.

ncr100
01-21-2013, 06:12 PM
...it could work. The problem comes down to economics as previously discussed.

...

Of course all of this does't make any difference anyway. We have zero say in anything. You can have a thousand more people who agree with a "CORE-route" but a couple of people at the top of LW development will overrule anything. Hopefully things are moving in the right direction.

I agree DigitalSorcery8 - it could go both ways and we cannot evaluate it from where we are sitting! They're not going to share their private code to dorks like me just for so I can get my jolly's analyzing their code complexity. We'll see when they ship "core". :)

DrStrik9
01-21-2013, 06:35 PM
The real answer I think to why it is still two apps is pretty much economics. <big snip> Funny I was just kind of musing on it and realized that maybe they don't have the resources to write a unified app and keep going.

I think you're onto something here.

geo_n
01-21-2013, 07:03 PM
I would be content if layout was plugged with a modelling api, which is the term I think, that would enable to model in layout, weightpainting in layout, save models and create versions within layout so that layout is aware of scene within scene contents, surfacing, etc. Then vertex level control be done by deformers and modifiers. Increase the modelling polycount power. That could be sellable as lw 13 to non-lwvers. Split app no way.

safetyman
01-22-2013, 06:48 AM
Keeping things like they are for economic reasons is irrelevant if you are losing users to your competitors due to technological advances and other reasons. If you get passed by technologically it will be very hard to keep pace without a more modern base. You have to keep innovating. I think people see new features, and think, "Cool", but you still can't do this or that, or your competition does this and you are still years away from something similar -- you're being left behind. That being said, I think Genoma and the Virtual Studio Tools are steps in the right direction.

I have to agree with HRGiger here; I don't see why CORE couldn't be developed in the background, even if at a snails pace, while updating good 'ol tried and true LW at the same time. Hard to justify from an economics standpoint? Well, if the alternative is being driven out of the market, then what do you do?

I gripe because I care.

Ryste3d
01-22-2013, 07:43 AM
Newtek spend 2.5 years trying to make LW a unified app. I am just happy they eventually continued making Lightwave what it is to day. So many new features since LW 9.6 (not that long ago) till today i simply just amazing.

And they don’t charge us $$$ per year in maintenance subscription for R&D - so they absolutely have to come up with something great with every new paying release.

And I still don’t understand how they can give away LW 11.5. When I look at other vendors price policy I simply don’t understand how Newtek earn money on Lightwave.

Ryste3d
01-22-2013, 07:43 AM
Newtek spend 2.5 years trying to make LW a unified app. I am just happy they eventually continued making Lightwave what it is to day. So many new features since LW 9.6 (not that long ago) till today i simply just amazing.

And they donít charge us $$$ per year in maintenance subscription for R&D - so they absolutely have to come up with something great with every new paying release.

And I still donít understand how they can give away LW 11.5. When I look at other vendors price policy I simply donít understand how Newtek earn money on Lightwave.

hrgiger
01-22-2013, 01:08 PM
Newtek spend 2.5 years trying to make LW a unified app. I am just happy they eventually continued making Lightwave what it is to day. So many new features since LW 9.6 (not that long ago) till today i simply just amazing.

And they don’t charge us $$$ per year in maintenance subscription for R&D - so they absolutely have to come up with something great with every new paying release.

And I still don’t understand how they can give away LW 11.5. When I look at other vendors price policy I simply don’t understand how Newtek earn money on Lightwave.

You obviously must have missed the LightWave 9.x series then if you think a free 11.5 update is insane. In LightWave 9, we got a free 9.1, a 9.2, a 9.3 and a 9.5 and none of them were all that insignificant from what I remember. Historically, there has always been free updates between the major point upgrades, the only exception being LightWave 10. LightWave 10 had an update but it was mostly a maintenance update with a few small features added.

You should be asking how Pixologic makes money on Zbrush. I bought Zbrush back during Zbrush 2. They are now on Zbrush 4 Release 5 and I haven't paid for a single release since I bought the software. It just goes to show that if you're innovative enough, then enough people are buying your software to make free updates something you can afford to do.

Lewis
01-22-2013, 01:12 PM
You obviously must have missed the LightWave 9.x series then if you think a free 11.5 update is insane. In LightWave 9, we got a free 9.1, a 9.2, a 9.3 and a 9.5 and none of them were all that insignificant from what I remember. Historically, there has always been free updates between the major point upgrades, the only

I think it was

9.2
9.3
9.3.1
9.5
9.5.1
9.6
9.6.1

all free

But your point is good , comparing that to 10 is big difference :).

Ryste3d
01-22-2013, 02:37 PM
You are absolutely right. If enough people buy your software you can make free updates and maybe never charge a cent for upgrading. What a nice thought. But I don’t thing this is the case with Lightwave (and many other 3d vendors).
Lightwave, Max, Mode, Maya, Blender and Softimage users buy zbrush. And that's properly a good business...

If Newtek can’t afford giving us 6 updates before they charge you I can understand that. But it is also my understanding that some LW users don’t like to spend money but at the same time wants everything all other 3d packages have to offer. Good luck with that.

Just saying...

hrgiger
01-22-2013, 03:01 PM
I think it was

9.2
9.3
9.3.1
9.5
9.5.1
9.6
9.6.1

all free

But your point is good , comparing that to 10 is big difference :).

Yeah, I knew I didn't have the point upgrades correct, I just know there was a boatload of them compared to LW 10. Personally, I think 11 is just about right where they should be as far as update go. I think I would like to see the first major release, immediately followed by a maintenance bug fix release once users have been able to give some feedback, and then a .5 update several months later. Then lets kick that next major release in the *** and get it going.

Surrealist.
01-23-2013, 02:01 AM
Maybe they were just tossing us bones back then as they were secretly cooking up a master plan.:hey:

Lightwolf
01-23-2013, 03:25 AM
The problem I see is that it will take quite a bit longer to unify simply because you are trying to work new code into legacy code or rewriting the old code to work with new situations.
But... you will always have a working application. Not three years down the line when you can finally see if the concepts actually work together.

QED, they didn't. ;)

Incremental is slower but safer. And the dev team tried the quick and "easy" route already, with the known result.

Cheers,
Mike

Lewis
01-23-2013, 04:29 AM
One thing is sure, it's damn slower :) but It's still remain to be seen is it "safer". When they start making bigger advances (proper centralized undo (history stack?) that works everywhere with everything ;)) it might end up with most of backwards compatibility breakage and might "kill" ton's of 3rd party plugins with one swipe also.

Lightwolf
01-23-2013, 05:27 AM
One thing is sure, it's damn slower :) but It's still remain to be seen is it "safer". When they start making bigger advances (proper centralized undo (history stack?) that works everywhere with everything ;)) it might end up with most of backwards compatibility breakage and might "kill" ton's of 3rd party plugins with one swipe also.
That's bound to happen one way or another anyhow. But you're at least (likely) to have a transition phase.

Mind you, this is pure speculation. I know how I'd approach it - but that doesn't mean that LW dev will approach it the same way, or at all.

Cheers,
Mike

Lewis
01-23-2013, 05:52 AM
That's bound to happen one way or another anyhow. But you're at least (likely) to have a transition phase.


Well one of reasons why they said they choose this path over CORE was to keep backwards compatibility so although i don't mind "all new/break all what's needed" approach it's not exactly what's been said then, heck it might even be worse 'coz if it breaks backwards compatibility and kills plugins it's no better than brand new app (no plugins at all at start) 'coz it'll still have some legacy problems and won't be so advanced as fresh full new code - IMHO :) ;).

BUT until it actually happens "i told you so.." it's not applicable yet :D.

Lightwolf
01-23-2013, 06:06 AM
Well one of reasons why they said they choose this path over CORE was to keep backwards compatibility so although i don't mind "all new/break all what's needed" approach it's not exactly what's been said then, heck it might even be worse 'coz if it breaks backwards compatibility and kills plugins it's no better than brand new app (no plugins at all at start) 'coz it'll still have some legacy problems and won't be so advanced as fresh full new code - IMHO :) ;).

BUT until it actually happens "i told you so.." it's not applicable yet :D.
Backwards compatibility doesn't need to extend forever. And it already doesn't.

Cheers,
Mike

Lewis
01-23-2013, 06:22 AM
Backwards compatibility doesn't need to extend forever. And it already doesn't.

Cheers,
Mike

True but if they kill hundreds of 3D party plugins with one swipe they better make native tools first :).

Lightwolf
01-23-2013, 06:25 AM
True but if they kill hundreds of 3D party plugins with one swipe they better make native tools first :).
I suspect even that will take more than one iteration... where classes of plugins will disappear but not all of them.

Granted, there's really only one type of modeler plugin. ;)
On the other hand, it's probably also relatively easy to keep that API emulated for a while.

Cheers,
Mike

Lewis
01-23-2013, 06:31 AM
On the other hand, it's probably also relatively easy to keep that API emulated for a while.


Emulated and modeler, really? Isn't it enough slow in modeler already :D :D ;)?

Lightwolf
01-23-2013, 06:46 AM
Emulated and modeler, really? Isn't it enough slow in modeler already :D :D ;)?
No functionality or slow functionality... pick one. :D

Cheers,
Mike

Lewis
01-23-2013, 06:54 AM
No functionality or slow functionality... pick one. :D

Cheers,
Mike

I chose 3rd option, Proper fast functionality, I thin modelers waited ENOUGH years by now, don't you? , it's about time to stop being sloppy and ignore modelers ;).

Lightwolf
01-23-2013, 06:57 AM
I chose 3rd option, Proper fast functionality, I thin modelers waited ENOUGH years by now, don't you? , it's about time to stop being sloppy and ignore modelers ;).
Sorry, not a valid option in the context we're discussing. ;)

Cheers,
Mike

Lightwolf
01-23-2013, 07:04 AM
Just to clarify:

It's a massive task to completely replace Modeler alone including the functionality provided by third parties. If you want to wait a few more years.. fine.

If NT can give you overhauled speed and functionality for the most common tasks - but provide a (maybe a little slower) legacy API for what's initially missing - then you can at least profit from the developments early for most tasks.

Which is better than not profiting at all because the completely re-vamped release needs more time.

So, in that sense, it's still two options, no functionality or slow functionality. Both come with the option of quick functionality later on. ;)

Cheers,
Mike

Lewis
01-23-2013, 07:22 AM
Only thing what I don't agree is that it'll be "little slower" if is emulated. I think it will noticeably slower of already damn slow system which hardly can edit at reliable FPS anything with more than 200k polys. But let's wait and see what's the plan :D.

jwiede
01-23-2013, 07:24 AM
Just to clarify:

It's a massive task to completely replace Modeler alone including the functionality provided by third parties. If you want to wait a few more years.. fine.
Mind you, we've already waited a few more years since the 2011 announcement, and in terms of infrastructure-level solutions to "big" problems (unification, undo/history, programmable UI/UX, etc.) we've received very little to show for it. Another few years of the same and there's a good chance it won't matter which path they chose, the end state will be roughly the same (market irrelevancy & development cessation).

Lightwolf
01-23-2013, 07:31 AM
Only thing what I don't agree is that it'll be "little slower" if is emulated. I think it will noticeably slower of already damn slow system which hardly can edit at reliable FPS anything with more than 200k polys. But let's wait and see what's the plan :D.
Well, what I mentioned would be _my_ plan, I have no idea of NTs. ;)

But: Currently the geometry core is slow. The overhead to graft on a different API doesn't make that much of a difference then (if you assume that the overhead of an API is constant regardless of what it connects to).
If it connects to a core that is actually quicker than the old one, then a little slower speed isn't that far off. It may even be quicker for some things and slower for others.

@jwiede: I completely agree. Which is why it'd be nice to see some steps that move toward that direction in the next major releases. Even if they're only under the hood.

Cheers,
Mike

Surrealist.
01-23-2013, 07:44 AM
I don't see that happening. LightWave is an old horse that ought to be taken out in the field and shot for sure. But too many people have their lives riding on this for that to happen. What you have predicted I think has already passed. Yet, still here it is. And I'll tell you why. Because it fills a market still. Won't compete with programs twice the price. But it will continue to serve people with a full set of features within this price range. That is until Modo comes of its own. And that is just about to happen within 2 years time. I predict the tools will be finished enough that even serious Maya users will take notice. When that happens, LightWave will either drop back down in price or Modo will go up, or both. But in the meantime LightWave will have continued to add features and gradually eek out a smaller niche in the market as well as continue to serve the studious that still use it. There will always be people who want to animate but not pay the full price of a larger package.

I don't think LightWave will ever reach a point of technological relevance much less superiority at all, in its lifetime. It is too far behind.

However on the other hand, I can already see that happening with Modo. Modo is the sleeper here.

But LightWave will still have a niche to fill as long as they continue to enhance it.

Lightwolf
01-23-2013, 07:55 AM
LightWave is an old horse that ought to be taken out in the field and shot for sure.
Last time they tried that, they shot the foal. ;)

Cheers,
Mike

50one
01-23-2013, 08:12 AM
..and the old horse seems to be very alive & kicking, possibly they feed him with steroids and cocaine

jwiede
01-23-2013, 08:15 AM
..and the old horse seems to be very alive & kicking
And you're basing that statement on...?

50one
01-23-2013, 08:37 AM
And you're basing that statement on...?

Fair enough, it's old, beaten, with no teeth and one leg broken but nevertheless is still a horse - hence feeding it with cocaine to keep it alive - where this method leads..I don't know.:)

erikals
01-23-2013, 09:42 AM
if you wanna get high, high as the sky...

hrgiger
01-23-2013, 01:33 PM
However on the other hand, I can already see that happening with Modo. Modo is the sleeper here.

But LightWave will still have a niche to fill as long as they continue to enhance it.

I don't know, I'm pretty disappointed with Modo. I wait all this time for character animation in Modo, and what do they lead off with? IKBoost. There are other things as well (the shader tree, some unanimatable attributes, scene handling...) but in a nutshell, it's not where I hoped it would be by now. I don't see anyhting all that revolutionary about Modo to think that its some kind of sleeping giant.

hrgiger
01-23-2013, 01:41 PM
And Richard, I agree. I think you have a lot of people who depend on Lightwave that are keeping it alive, plus I think its a great springboard applicaton for those who are starting out. But without some real changes to the way the program works, I don't see it becoming a leader anytime soon but I see it staying relevant for a lot of people for a long time to come.

I don't necessarily agree with the whole it's too far behind idea though. Things change.

Surrealist.
01-23-2013, 02:30 PM
Yeah, interesting perspective, I do know what you mean about Modo. My first reaction to 601 was pretty positive until I got a trial version and started playing with it. I think they have a lot of innovative ideas. But they will have to finish the animation site of it. But at its price point I think it will make a difference. Maybe I should have worded that differently. I agree, maybe not a technological wonder, but as soon as people are able to start really animating characters in that app, I do see a lot of people dumping Maya. (Which I am now using along with Softimage by the way). Because it has a lot of attractive features all in one. But they are going to have to continue to really finish that side of it. My personal feelings about Modo was that I did not really like modeling in it. It felt too much like modeling in LightWave which I have grown to dislike. Even with that, I was on the verge of a purchase. But I did not feeling like investing in a maybe. They have to actually finish it, then I'll take a look again.

Rayek
01-23-2013, 03:08 PM
Never liked Modo myself, and I believe its price will only increase after Foundry buyout.

As for Lightwave's affordability: while Newtek is still working (hopefully) to get Lightwave into the 21st century, Blender is steadfastly improving at a high rate: Cycles looks better with each release (now with open shade language support), modeling is improving rapidly (bmesh, bsurfaces, new modeling tools are added every month now), viewport bullet physics integration is now in trunk and is expected to be in the upcoming verison, dynamic topology sculpting almost here, smoke sim improvements... and much more. The refactoring/modernization of Blender is, but for the depsgraph part, pretty much done, and new features and improvements are almost a weekly occurrence now. The add-on collection available right now is quite extensive.

Of course, I can only speak for myself, and the rapid development of Blender is one of the reasons I have not yet updated to the latest version of LW.

I do think the niche Lightwave occupies in terms of its affordable pricing and good rendering might be filled sooner rather than later.

DigitalSorcery8
01-23-2013, 03:23 PM
But... you will always have a working application. Not three years down the line when you can finally see if the concepts actually work together.

QED, they didn't. ;)

Incremental is slower but safer. And the dev team tried the quick and "easy" route already, with the known result.
Yes. I agree. And yes, slower IS safer - the question that remains is... HOW slow? Since we have yet to see anything towards serious integration, we actually do not KNOW that that is still in the works. Remember, they can say ANYTHING they want, and then all of a sudden change direction. It would be nice to hear it said over and over and over again on a regular basis.


@jwiede: I completely agree. Which is why it'd be nice to see some steps that move toward that direction in the next major releases. Even if they're only under the hood.
I agree as well. LW12 will be a HUGE indicator IMO as to the true direction. But as I said above, I would like the development team to tell us over and over that integration is what they are working on NOW and not "planned" for sometime down the road.

erikals
01-23-2013, 09:58 PM
It would be nice to hear it said over and over and over again on a regular basis.

seems the new policy is to avoid this, which i can understand. it's dangerous to keep promises one can't know for sure will work. [core]

fablefox
01-23-2013, 11:05 PM
My 2 cent here.

I mostly agree with Surrealist. MODO is the sleeper here, and they are going big. MODO greatest strength (and also its weakness) is that it focus mostly on modelling. Right off the bat they knew where they stand, and instead of being less-jack-of-all-trades where nobody want to use for anything, they just focus on one thing, and be as good as possible at that. Just look at the plug-ins and extra tools being sold to know their market segment and business model. And they have the market cornered. When people, even though have access to other thing, decided to use MODO to model for RAGE and the heli in Avatar, they knew they have arrived as far as modelling go. Only then they venture into other segment ( animation and character animation).

Yet studios still look down on them since they are a small company. But after merging, they are now 210+ behemoth. This add confidence for large studios to use their tools and support. They even hiring recently. And if they improve the pipeline, modo will be more pipeline friendly.

But the greatest is the fact that both company are private, and not public. They serve the customer, not stock holder.

Blender is great, but it slowly going into growing pains. The software will be bigger, this lead to large code to be maintained, but not enough developers. Even Bretch have to divide his time between working on cycles and bug fixing. Everytime there will be new releases, there will be more tools, equal to more bugs, and thus equal to slow "improve" development, and this to divide between tools being added, will means Blender development is a diagonal down. The bigger Blender have become, more slow the development would be. Unless something changed, there will be a time where most developer will work on bug fixes only, and what ever improvement will be brought in via google summer of code. This improvement will introduce more bug, and todo items, and developer will spend their time on it. And there will be a time where a tool/s will be dropped since it not worth to be maintained anymore.

It already happened multiple times already. Blender Internal is abandoned, while Cycles is still in it infancy. B-Mesh takes too long. There are growing pains all over the place. They are quick to add bells and whistles (such as 3d tracker) while Blender not even a go to modeller yet. There even a thread at luxology regarding show stopper that stop blender from being used in certain area, but nobody is touching it.

Its up to Rob Power to see how he can turn LW around. If CORE decision is the right one in the long term.

I always wonder why 10 user was shortchanged but 11 users get 11.5. Maybe Rob needed the upgrade cash? Did it burn enough bridge for Rob to give 11 user a 11.5 instead of getting out 12 and gain even more cash?

Interesting times ahead. But the winner, would be Luxology + Foundry. Foundry is the Stephen Spielberg, and Luxology is Christian Bale child actor.

fablefox
01-23-2013, 11:16 PM
Another 1 cent.

I think Rob has observed enough to notice how many ask for refund the moment the CORE was scrapped, and how many decided NOT to upgrade to 11 after realizing what they are getting for 10.1. And these users knew the money they spent for 10 and what was promised was not worthy of paying the upgrades to 11. Hence 11.5. Rob have the option to make it 11.5 or 12. This is between making more money on upgrades or keep the bridges going. People will look at money spent and see if per dollar, getting Autodesk app will worth in the overall sense (support, plug-ins, and tools).

Maybe that's why this is 11.5 and not 12.

And it really need to be combined. Sigh.

DigitalSorcery8
01-23-2013, 11:31 PM
seems the new policy is to avoid this, which i can understand. it's dangerous to keep promises one can't know for sure will work. [core]
And I can easily understand that. But... they HAVE said that integration is the goal. I think many here would like to know if it's actually being worked on NOW or if it's something that they PLAN on doing by LW20 or thereabouts. Minimal information is one thing; zero information is another thing entirely.

erikals
01-23-2013, 11:47 PM
But the winner, would be Luxology + Foundry...

not so sure about that one... :]

Surrealist.
01-24-2013, 12:01 AM
Interesting angle is the marketing and PR. I made some silly remarks about that earlier, but think about it, it really is a new animal now. For LightWave users, even a basic editing tool set for meshes in Layout would be something. Let's just take one thing for an example. Lets say they came up with a tool in Layout that allowed you use some basic editing tools like a sculpt brush and move verts around (not create new geometry just edit) and this was the basis now for creating endomorphs. You could create the morphs and move sliders around to test the various transitions between shapes and perhaps along with some more interesting tools for facial animation. You could either do a facial animation with this tool or access the shapes in the usual way with morph mixer etc. Now LightWave users would jump up and down over this. And it might bring in some new users who where on the fence before. Especially if it is a very capable little tool. But how do you market this to the broader community? I mean it would be met with... "yes... and you point is...?" Kind of laughable. Unless it is also innovative in some way. Then just that tool makes people take interest.

So it is an interesting line to walk marketing wise. On the other hand, you have Bullet and Python which are both still very marketable. And even though instancing is not very new news, it is still sexy. Rendering enhancements go the same way. A rigging tool set in Modeler? Well, it does have some interesting tools which makes it kind of attractive, but it is not really something you roll out with as "hey have a look at this innovation". It works for LightWavers, and people nearly ready to buy as is, but is not going to have a broader impact.

So I see LightWave as a tool that as it gradually gets more and more features, will start to attract a wider audience. But as far as integration goes, that is an interesting place to be marketing wise. So the tools themselves have to be also innovative and powerful in some way. So that you can promote that aspect of it without sounding ignorant. However, with bullet you can say... "hey we have this now!". That's news still. Softimage just got some of it too recently. And Python I think is even new in Maya. Blender is adding Bullet now and has had Python for a short time.

So I think the key to LightWave dev and marketing is integration features that are also attractive in the sense that they offer something unique. If they can pull that off then it will add life (time energy) to the cycle of integration which they need.

djwaterman
01-24-2013, 01:09 AM
Yes, unification is one thing, but a sexy new feature can create buzz and if sexy enough can attract new users, like an absolutely realistic hair solver that could do shampoo commercial quality hair with amazing photo-real examples for publicity. Or some sort of delicate fracturing addition that allows for totally tailored custom designed breakage, a dent feature that allows collisions to effect geometry in various ways to simulate damage or what ever. I'm not suggesting these specifically, just saying that having some attractive easy to use feature to promote and talk about is important and can turn heads. Not every customer is obsessed by unification and even when and if it is achieved, it's not something you want to be seen shouting about.

On another note, I'd love geometry wireframes to look the same in Layout as they do in modeller, its hard to see what's going on with a dense triangulated mesh and I don't see how you could manipulate it with any additional sculpting tools in the current form.

Rayek
01-24-2013, 01:53 AM
My 2 cent here.

Blender is great, but it slowly going into growing pains. The software will be bigger, this lead to large code to be maintained, but not enough developers. Even Bretch have to divide his time between working on cycles and bug fixing. Everytime there will be new releases, there will be more tools, equal to more bugs, and thus equal to slow "improve" development, and this to divide between tools being added, will means Blender development is a diagonal down. The bigger Blender have become, more slow the development would be. Unless something changed, there will be a time where most developer will work on bug fixes only, and what ever improvement will be brought in via google summer of code. This improvement will introduce more bug, and todo items, and developer will spend their time on it. And there will be a time where a tool/s will be dropped since it not worth to be maintained anymore.

It already happened multiple times already. Blender Internal is abandoned, while Cycles is still in it infancy. B-Mesh takes too long. There are growing pains all over the place. They are quick to add bells and whistles (such as 3d tracker) while Blender not even a go to modeller yet. There even a thread at luxology regarding show stopper that stop blender from being used in certain area, but nobody is touching it.


Not really true, because what you are describing holds more or less true for any of the other 3d packages: they get more complex as well, new bugs are introduced, and squashed. No difference there when compared to Blender. And remember that adding more developers to a project does not mean faster or more efficient development - in reality this is more often than not quite the opposite (which has been discussed earlier in this thread).

The main difference is that, since Blender's development is completely transparent to its users, the bugs are visible from the start to everyone using Blender's betas - unlike its commercial brothers and sisters where bug hunting is done internally and with a select group of experiences beta users. Only after that process is a new version released (often still with bugs that are more often than not only squashed in the next release to entice users to invest in the newest version). Blender is actually relatively bug-free.

The examples you provide to prove your point have nothing to do with it: bmesh is integrated, and it works well. Blender internal was never really abandoned (it is a "finished" render engine, and its life ending with patches here and there and everywhere to support features it was never intended to handle), and Cycles is the modern replacement. And in its current state, it is, in my opinion, not at all in its infancy - hair is already working, volumetrics, micro-displacement, and more are all to become part of Cycles in the upcoming six~eight months. It is already a quite powerful and quality renderer, used in production. Certainly not in its "infancy".

There are growing pains: the depsgraph and viewport are in need of an update, and the video editor is very primitive - none of the 3d apps is perfect in every regard. And like its commercial counterparts developers are working on addressing these issues. Blender's development focus is also sometimes vague-ish.

Blender is not perfect - neither is Lightwave, C4D, Maya, Max, etc. Being open source and a very different business model it seems that the 3d community has a tendency to regard Blender as a disaster just waiting to happen - well, it has not happened yet: what's more, where Newtek failed with Core, and Caligari with Truespace, the Blender Foundation succeeded in modernizing Blender. If that doesn't prove the tenacity of Blender's developer community, and the future stability of this particular open source project, I don't know what will. I still think that was a small miracle (didn't AD have lots of trouble with modernizing Max too?)

I am saying this because I wish to see Newtek succeed with Lightwave - yet I feel that in ten years' time, Blender will be alive and kicking, and I am not so certain about Lightwave. I really do hope the LW devs are working behind the scenes to get Lighwave consolidated into one modern application that will survive the next ten years. It needs that to attract new users away from Modo, C4D, and AD.

And I believe the pricing of Lightwave doesn't nearly play as great a part in new user's purchase patterns as we would like to believe - the new features of LW11 are good, and have gained Newtek some renewed interest, though features alone will not, I think, safeguard LW's survival - in the upcoming three years it should be modernized, or it may well go the way of the Dodo.

Then again, these are all conjectural musings on my part - I have no idea what Newtek is planning or doing, or what their long-term plans are in regards to LW development, and communication seems to be cut off mostly. This is actually my main concern right now: Newtek's deafening silence. The contrast with other software companies I deal with is rather disconcerting at times.

fablefox
01-24-2013, 03:42 AM
@erikals: You mean they haven't WON already? We are taking about being taken under the wing of Foundry here.

Rayek: The difference between Blender and other tools is that other 3d software have paid developers. And when the software become big enough that it require MORE developers, price are increased for upgrades.. Autodesk went through this, C4D the same, and so is Houdini. We are also have our own price increase now that Rob realize LW have become more complex, and more developers needed. (and also probably why v10 user only get 10.1 but v11 users get 11.5).

Blender have none of these option. And from recent newsletter / updates regarding blender fund, paid main developer are just Ton and two others. Yes, there are other developers, but their time is limited. Blender people are doing right with the Blender Network. By driving cash to blender users, maybe this will bring more cash to blender. Its not about that Blender development is transparent, but reality.

MODO human count is around 30, and they just focus on modelling. But Blender want even Blender game engine (with GPL licensing problem) and mobile version (Android). When I talk about BMesh, is that it takes too long to bring n-gon (and other capabilities) because there is not enough people working on it, and at one time the main programmer fell sick. In the end Ton brought in some help because it was important in order for Blender to move on (and we are talking about MODELLING here - which is a core to 3d app).

erikals
01-24-2013, 04:19 AM
@erikals: You mean they haven't WON already? We are taking about being taken under the wing of Foundry here.

as did AutoDesk with xSI... and what happened?... nothing.
crossing fingers is one thing, to state someone won, something else.

fablefox
01-24-2013, 05:25 AM
as did AutoDesk with xSI... and what happened?... nothing.
crossing fingers is one thing, to state someone won, something else.

We are talking about our circles here. Modo is, after all, a breakout of LW. The difference is that MODO is making head way, Lightwave is to be see.

erikals
01-24-2013, 05:35 AM
well, i disagree.

a nice app, but that's all it is. imo.

time will tell, i hope though that they can pull something off.
(something that can compete with AD)

howardt
01-24-2013, 06:56 AM
I came back to this forum after some absence, and not surprised to see the same laments and arguments going on.

I agree with all Surrealist said about why Core was stopped and why Lightwave is on the course it is on now.

My biggest disappointment with the path of the last couple years with NewTek was that Core offered the promise and hope of two things: an open and productive partnership with Lightwave users, with an abundance of two-way communication; and a modern architecture that would be a dream for both internal and external developers to develop to.

For those of you here who like developing 3D software, Blender is a much more exciting place to be than Lightwave right now. Just saying.

Rayek
01-24-2013, 10:46 AM
Rayek: The difference between Blender and other tools is that other 3d software have paid developers. And when the software become big enough that it require MORE developers, price are increased for upgrades.. Autodesk went through this, C4D the same, and so is Houdini. We are also have our own price increase now that Rob realize LW have become more complex, and more developers needed. (and also probably why v10 user only get 10.1 but v11 users get 11.5).

Hmmm, I guess that is why users of the latest couple of Max updates (2011,2012,2013) have been complaining about ever more buggy releases with buggy new features? ;-)



MODO human count is around 30, and they just focus on modelling. But Blender want even Blender game engine (with GPL licensing problem) and mobile version (Android). When I talk about BMesh, is that it takes too long to bring n-gon (and other capabilities) because there is not enough people working on it, and at one time the main programmer fell sick. In the end Ton brought in some help because it was important in order for Blender to move on (and we are talking about MODELLING here - which is a core to 3d app).

That's why I expect Modo to increase in price more and more, with the end result being it will cost as much as AD products - and not necessarily become the most efficient or best of 3d packages. And say what you want about the hiccups in Blender's development history: in the end it seems it (almost) always gets done, and people do get excited over new releases, features, and bug fixes, ever looking forward, and not back - which is a much better stance to work from than stifling innovation because commercial interests/survival top a company's priority list. Though they do shoot themselves in the foot at times (many times?) and stumble, the Blender Foundation learns, pick themselves up, and continue their work.

I agree with Howardt: it is very exciting to see where this will lead to. And I will be curious where Newtek will be in a couple of years down the road.

Surrealist.
01-24-2013, 12:24 PM
I don't see Modo raising its pricing that way. That does not make sense to me anyway. I see that Modo has a niche market as well. And when they get the animation side finished this will spill over onto a portion - but not all - of the Maya market and offer a less expensive and less mature app that at least delivers the minimum of what these users need. So raising the price would defeat the purpose. I think it can have a dramatic impact even for LightWave, 3Dmax, Cinema4D as well. That is coming from my perspective because had I been shopping in 1-2 years from now, Modo would have been a contender. But if Modo was the same or nearly the same price as Maya, it would have to really knock me over. And I don't see that happening. Just how I see it.

I have been using Blender for a few years now. If it had the tools I needed at the level I needed them to work, I'd not bought other software or even been looking for that matter. It is developing fast and I have an affinity for it, but the tools don't really work on the level I need them to. It is a different world to be working in a commercial package like Softimage and Blender shows its weaknesses fairly clearly by comparison - to me. And I am not talking about what is not yet completed, it is just that the level of standard for what is considered "complete" has not proven to be high enough for me. That is just me from my testing and experience. So I feel that app is a long way from commercial competition. Cycles is awesome. it is the best thing going. I love how that render engine works, and looks. Not quite there yet but looking promising.

zarti
01-24-2013, 01:37 PM
..

My biggest disappointment with the path of the last couple years with NewTek was that Core offered the promise and hope of two things: an open and productive partnership with Lightwave users, with an abundance of two-way communication; and a modern architecture that would be a dream for both internal and external developers to develop to.

..

absolutely agree .

i can add its real measurable progress and usefulness .

i think Kore wd had been pretty far right now ( and financially more proficient than LW ( i think ) actually is ) .

the hope and a great positive motivation were definitively ekzekuted with the ' Change ' ..




.cheers

hrgiger
01-24-2013, 01:45 PM
absolutely agree .

i can add its real measurable progress and usefulness .

i think Kore wd had been pretty far right now ( and financially more proficient than LW ( i think ) actually is ) .

the hope and a great positive motivation were definitively ekzekuted with the ' Change ' ..




.cheers

Yeah. Everyone at the time of the uncertainty over CORE was focused on disenfranchising the current base and fearful of how LightWavers of old were reacting. But not really thinking about how the appeal of a new codebase and direction for LightWave might actually attract new users as well as attracting back those who used to use LightWave but moved on because of LightWave's limitations.

erikals
01-24-2013, 04:55 PM
i estimate we'll see a LW12 preview at Siggraph, let's see...

fablefox
01-24-2013, 10:39 PM
Regarding MODO price increase, it is expected, but I don't think it would end up like Autodesk. At least not in the short term. Their mentality for now is not to charge user that doesn't need it, but do the best and price accordingly to those that need it. That why they develop different type of kits and sell it separately, including cad loader and solid works kit. there are saying that i heard that character animation will be a kit too (the advance portion of it). This is due to the well known licensing of IK something, and just like cat loader / solid works, they doesn't want to charge people who doesn't need it.

but will that make them end up like C4D early years? (too much pick and choose). But then again, they incorporate the physic plug-in into the main app, so people who skip it when it was being sold as a plug-in received for free when they upgrades.

I guess Lux does it well in that regard. Instead of combining one into super package, they actually kept it affordable and sell other thing separately to those that does need it.

I do love Blender and I do have high hopes for it. They need more resources.

geo_n
01-30-2013, 05:51 AM
Whatever modo pricing will be the program itself being a unified app from the start is picking up steam.

http://content.luxology.com/modo/LuxTV/ACS_Teaser_1.mp4
http://content.luxology.com/modo/LuxTV/ACS_Teaser_2.mp4

Looks to be a characterstudio type tool. Probably mocap retargetting will be possible within modo without needing an expensive app.

Waves of light
01-30-2013, 05:56 AM
Whatever modo pricing will be the program itself being a unified app from the start is picking up steam.

http://content.luxology.com/modo/LuxTV/ACS_Teaser_1.mp4
http://content.luxology.com/modo/LuxTV/ACS_Teaser_2.mp4

Looks to be a characterstudio type tool. Probably mocap retargetting will be possible within modo without needing an expensive app.

I was just looking at this only this morning. Impressive. Let's see what Genoma looks like now.

drako
01-30-2013, 06:21 AM
Even Lukasz has left the building as joe alter has made before....Why newtek doesnt care more for lightwave and left the evolution behide.
Why we still waiting lightwave as a new solid software and we are in the same place as always.

jwiede
01-30-2013, 06:55 AM
Whatever modo pricing will be the program itself being a unified app from the start is picking up steam.

http://content.luxology.com/modo/LuxTV/ACS_Teaser_1.mp4
http://content.luxology.com/modo/LuxTV/ACS_Teaser_2.mp4

Looks to be a characterstudio type tool. Probably mocap retargetting will be possible within modo without needing an expensive app.
Wow, nice to see ACS alive and kicking, and the workflows shown looked so... concise. I'm really looking forward to getting my hands on this stuff, kit or however sold. The first ACS teaser video is also a compelling demonstration of the benefits with a unified environment, IMO.

safetyman
01-31-2013, 05:45 AM
I've been using Blender quite a bit lately and I find myself spending more time with it than LW. I've been able to rig a couple of characters from scratch without pulling my hair out, something that I was very frustrated with in LW. Not that rigging in LW is horrible, just unneccesarily difficult, and the juice wasn't worth the squeeze. Of course, I'm a dummy when it comes to rigging.

Blender allowed me to create a character, rig it, save some poses, and get out some decent animation in just a couple of days. I can also re-use the rigs, quite easily, as well as transfer all the weight maps from one character to another, or from a character to its clothing, so I'm able to get one rig working and re-use it on other characters with very minimal effort. I can open LW models directly -- and it even automatically applies a sub-d modifier if the LW model is subdivided, so I can rig all the characters I've created over the years that I've been waiting to rig, but never had the time.

I'm hoping that Genoma is as good as I think it will be, otherwise I'm going to have to use Blender for everything except rendering, because for now, I'm much more productive.

hrgiger
01-31-2013, 06:03 AM
I was just looking at this only this morning. Impressive. Let's see what Genoma looks like now.

Unless they have added a way to do corrective morphing within Layout, Genoma is still just a modeler to Layout tool with all the great and age old back and forth action between the two programs to get deformations to look right.

erikals
01-31-2013, 06:03 AM
i've been considering Blender for CA too, it's quite alright.

so, hope to see more improvements to the CA part in LW.

(mainly thinking of deformation fixes, weightpaint friendly, lattice and a good pose saver with thumbnails)

---------

as for Modo ACS, nice, been waiting to see that for a while.

Waves of light
01-31-2013, 06:11 AM
Unless they have added a way to do corrective morphing within Layout, Genoma is still just a modeler to Layout tool with all the great and age old back and forth action between the two programs to get deformations to look right.

See, there is a promo picture on the 'last chance to upgrade' email which shows a rendered image with what looks like a new bones system showing through the mesh of a spider. Now, these might be, as you say, the layout side of the rig... which could be uneditable. I just hope you're wrong.

Surrealist.
01-31-2013, 06:11 AM
I've been using Blender quite a bit lately and I find myself spending more time with it than LW. I've been able to rig a couple of characters from scratch without pulling my hair out, something that I was very frustrated with in LW. Not that rigging in LW is horrible, just unneccesarily difficult, and the juice wasn't worth the squeeze. Of course, I'm a dummy when it comes to rigging.

Blender allowed me to create a character, rig it, save some poses, and get out some decent animation in just a couple of days. I can also re-use the rigs, quite easily, as well as transfer all the weight maps from one character to another, or from a character to its clothing, so I'm able to get one rig working and re-use it on other characters with very minimal effort. I can open LW models directly -- and it even automatically applies a sub-d modifier if the LW model is subdivided, so I can rig all the characters I've created over the years that I've been waiting to rig, but never had the time.

I'm hoping that Genoma is as good as I think it will be, otherwise I'm going to have to use Blender for everything except rendering, because for now, I'm much more productive.

Indeed. Also have you tried Rigify? It is quite nice. The controls are very good I think.

Surrealist.
01-31-2013, 06:39 AM
See, there is a promo picture on the 'last chance to upgrade' email which shows a rendered image with what looks like a new bones system showing through the mesh of a spider. Now, these might be, as you say, the layout side of the rig... which could be uneditable. I just hope you're wrong.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfut_KXamKw

Genoma is a huge huge improvement over the current system in LightWave. Given the constraints of the limitations of the two apps, I have to say they have done about as good as you can do with it. It won't be the same as a unified app but it is going to make a big difference.

It seems the rigs are generated in Layout so you would not want to edit there I don't think because you'd have all the constraints applied already. But you can edit the bones in Modeler and update it and the rig will update in Layout.

Again there is no apparent push to integrate at this time for all the reasons we have discussed already. But do look for vast improvements in the tools and workflow within what is currently feasible. Genoma falls under that "new direction" one can extrapolate by logic very well.

There may be work going on under the hood, but that won't be apparent or useful for a long time anyway.

bjornkn
01-31-2013, 07:43 AM
Edit: Don't know what happened with these duplicates?

bjornkn
01-31-2013, 07:44 AM
Edit: Don't know what happened with these duplicates?

bjornkn
01-31-2013, 07:46 AM
Does anyone know what the upgrade price (from 9.6) would be after today?

hrgiger
01-31-2013, 08:58 AM
See, there is a promo picture on the 'last chance to upgrade' email which shows a rendered image with what looks like a new bones system showing through the mesh of a spider. Now, these might be, as you say, the layout side of the rig... which could be uneditable. I just hope you're wrong.

Are you talking about the image you can see on the 11.5 features page as well: https://www.lightwave3d.com/new_features_11-5/ That isn't a new bones system, that is basically Genoma's updated version of skelegons (I think they referred to them as connector types in the Siggraph videos). That has nothing to do with Layout, those are just the tools to setup your rig before you send it to Layout where you convert it and its business as usual.

Waves of light
01-31-2013, 09:06 AM
No mate. There is a pic on the 'click for more' pic on the 'last chance to upgrade' email/link that shows a rendered spider with rig showing through. I'm out on mobile at the mo, but will find it when I get back. Hopefully I'm not confused on this one.

hrgiger
01-31-2013, 09:25 AM
This one? https://www.lightwave3d.com/static/marketing/mailers/01232013/lightwave11-5/index.html Its too small to tell what's going on there but I dont' see anyhting that would indicate this is something radically different then the way bones and deformations work in Layout and nothing was suggested otherwise at Siggraph or after. Perhaps the way bones or reference items are displayed but thats probably all I'm afraid. Genoma is an autorigger with the added benefit of being able to customize the rig parts and update it in Layout but not really chaning the way deformations are handled in Layout. It still is based on the weights you set up in modeler or whatever the deformation will be on an unweighted model.

Surrealist.
01-31-2013, 09:28 AM
From what I have seen from the demo there is no other bone system in Layout. It is as Hrgiger says business as usual with the addition of a much better back and forth between Modeler where you use the basic same tech as skellegons and the addition of what looks like a very nice set of auto rigging tools. So it is kind of like skellegons extremely enhanced with some kind of connection to setting up the constraints and controls automatically in Layout. So you can continue to re-edit your rig in Modeler without having to deal with the constraints. And that is a real big plus. Because the constraints seem to reset themselves when you move the skellegons in Modeler. Even though you are passing through to Layout to update the rig, it is still a very good system. The only other app I have seen this in is Blender where you can freely edit the bones in Edit mode. (you can do this in XSI for example but still once you get constraints in you are more limited to what you can freely edit) As far as auto rigging systems I have seen this is normal. You'd always have to go back to the set up rig, make changes and then regenerate it. Also True in Blender with Rigify. Once the constraints are in, you really can not edit the bone positions too easily because there are many hidden offsets and so on that make the whole thing work. It is very complex.

Weighing is another thing entirely. This is where a single app shines because you can pose and animate as you paint weights. This is far more cumbersome in LightWave. At the moment you'd have to rely heavily on bones with no weights and paint in corrections or use hold bones.

Still no real better way to make interactive corrections.

It is primarily a rigging tool only.

Spinland
01-31-2013, 09:31 AM
Probably coming from lack of experience in these tools, but I was wondering whether there's a chance the new muscle/tendon rig elements would be introducing ways to deform in Layout?

hrgiger
01-31-2013, 10:02 AM
Probably coming from lack of experience in these tools, but I was wondering whether there's a chance the new muscle/tendon rig elements would be introducing ways to deform in Layout?

Not from anything that NT has said. Again Genoma is only adding a new (and hopefully quicker and more flexible) way to rig a character but no new way to way to deform characters once your rig is created in Layout.

Waves of light
01-31-2013, 10:22 AM
@hrgiger: Yep, that's the image. I am hoping you're wrong, but it may just be VPR shot with OpenGL overlay turned on. I was hoping it was some sort of Layout Genoma manipulation.

At the moment, I'm waiting on Genoma before making a decision on whether or not to test and purchase RHiggit. I see Genoma being able to get to a high level of deformation (enough for simple animations jobs) and RHiggit for more complex rigs/animations. But I may well be proved wrong by Genoma. We'll see.

jwiede
01-31-2013, 10:53 AM
@hrgiger: Yep, that's the image. I am hoping you're wrong, but it may just be VPR shot with OpenGL overlay turned on. I was hoping it was some sort of Layout Genoma manipulation.
What precisely do you think you see in that picture? Ability to edit Genoma-generated rigs in Layout without losing ability to also edit in Genoma/Modeler?

Waves of light
01-31-2013, 11:04 AM
What precisely do you think you see in that picture? Ability to edit Genoma-generated rigs in Layout without losing ability to also edit in Genoma/Modeler?

I suppose, yes. I can't make out if the blue lines are IK goal chains or a new part of the Genoma rig, which you could possibly edit inside Layout, to have better deformation, without having to go back and forth between Modeler/Layout.

What do think?

erikals
01-31-2013, 12:32 PM
yo!

11.5 preview > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODcc9VqQi1A

Genoma is ready to be used. Download available now.

lardbros
01-31-2013, 01:02 PM
yo!

11.5 preview > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODcc9VqQi1A

Genoma is ready to be used. Download available now.

Oooooh... thought you were joking... but checked and it's there!!!! Yayyyyy!

Surrealist.
01-31-2013, 04:56 PM
Yeah. Looks like a real nice release too. :)