PDA

View Full Version : Lightwave 12 and Lightwave's future



saranine
06-21-2014, 08:18 PM
Lightwave 12 [whenever it happens] will make or break it as a 3D product. I don't think that it will go one way or the other. Either

[1] Newtek fixes up the documentation, gives a unified option, updates the 1990ish system of layers, adds more features etc. Lightwave is competitive again and I could finally recommend it to a total novice at 3D.

or

[2] Newtek leaves Lightwave 12 pretty much the same as Lightwave 11. Autodesk will be waiting to pounce. Within a year Autodesk will buy up Lightwave.

I think that Lightwave 12 is high noon. My private joke is "what's more secret than files from the KBG?" Answer: "Lightwave's feaures!" Look at Form Z, Hitfilm, Blender if you want to see industry standard systems of user help files and documentation. Having a Lightwave 10 help file without a pdf or GUI help or set of intro videos in the program doesn't cut it in 2014. I'm sorry but it doesn't.

Newtek would have to be the most quasi-autistic extreme of engineering "if it works we don't need to sell it" mentality: brilliant engineers [ look at Chronosculpt] but just almost an opensource late 1980's company culture - we don't need to document because we pass around our ideas by word of mouth.

I've probably narked off any Newtek employees who read this. But someone has to say it. You are so, so far behind the documentation curve. I'd say 20 years behind - having one help file from the last version and a mish mash of youtube videos - that was good enough in about 1995.

It would be unwise for anyone in my opinion to just learn Lightwave. If Lightwave 12 flops you will want to be skilled in something else.

erikals
06-21-2014, 08:27 PM
somewhat true, F1 launches an old LightWave 10 webpage, not good...

the pdf files for LightWave 11.6 can be found here >
https://www.lightwave3d.com/account

once signed in, you can download the pdf files...

---------------------------------------

video tutorials can be found here >
http://forums.newtek.com/showthread.php?125893-LightWave-Training-just-a-list&p=1220226#post1220226

cresshead
06-21-2014, 08:47 PM
lightwave 12 being "seen" as a make or break release may just delay the release longer and longer...12 need to show 'movement' and commitment to bringing tools into one workspace be that modeller or layout or both.

not a complete move in 1 version, that's just asking for waay too much, but demonstrate that it's possible with some modeller only stuff in layout and maybe some layout only stuff in modeller.
as for this being the best way forward, well plan A didn't pan out well so this is plan B, keeping current users in a "lightwave environment" but moving on from the split app only approach to tools.

there's plenty of opportunities out there...the deal is not done..other apps are stumbling/bumbling along not delivering good updates and so if NEWTEK get this right
good times can be ahead for Lightwave 12 onward.

roboman
06-22-2014, 02:17 PM
I've worked in manufacturing and can't count the number of times I've heard some one say the companies future counts on the new product, just to hear some one else say the companies future counts on every product they release. I like Lightwave a lot and would like to see in improve. I like Newtek and the fact that they produce products that are affordable to a person who really wants to do video work at a pro level. I'm a bit shocked to not see more small production and animation houses. I see Newtek as providing opportunities to people who want to take it. I don't see them not making a major effort to put out a very good product at a reasonable price. I don't see it as any more of a turning point then any other release, they are all turning points and land marks the company needs to cross to stay in business.

robertoortiz
06-22-2014, 04:23 PM
Here are some the question I present to all here.
What would be that X FEATURE that would be that magical bullet that would make LW the darling of the 3d World?
It his something feasible and fair to the current dev team.

Or do we finally accept as a community the fact that most of the pro market opinion about the app has calcified.
And instead of going into another futile attempt to go a the "Front gate" we should try another path in the 3d world.
And I am sorry to be a Debbie downer here , but whatever feature X we develop, it would be received by a shrug in the 3d marketplace.
They assume that it s only a matter of time before their favorite current app will COPY X FEATURE.

So what can LW team do for LW 12.
I think the path Lw 12 should follow is one of STREAMLINING And USABILITY.
Make an app that is NOT intimidating to the masses and gets a rep for its ease of use.

jasonwestmas
06-22-2014, 04:37 PM
lol Autodesk is not threatened by lightwave in and of itself. Lw needs restructuring at its roots and so there is no killer feature that would benefit Lightwave's popularity until the former happens.

robertoortiz
06-22-2014, 04:44 PM
Agreed Autodesk could care less.

Some suggestions..
COMMUNICATE BETTER
Talk honestly to the user base. The WRONG lesson was taken from the whole Core fiasco. Have a better way for users to share their ideas.
NEW MARKETS
Again the high end market is unreachable, so why not look into other markets.
Virtual set production, (jebus you guys own the freaking Tricaster,
3D Maker Market
Indie Game Market
And yes, Motion Graphics.(the users in this market change tools on a heart beat, just ask Quark)
LEARNING FROM THE USER BASE.
Dont be afraid of embedding yourself with REALLY small studios / indie users

Dodgy
06-22-2014, 05:58 PM
Liquids. That would at give us feature others still don't have and that we can't emulate at all.

erikals
06-22-2014, 06:02 PM
i contacted the LW3DG about that, regarding https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dq22dmrEDpM
crossing fingers....

...i'd say renting RealFlow for $250/m is great though, coming from an indie's point of view...

jasonwestmas
06-22-2014, 07:08 PM
I would agree that LW3DG should make Lightwave more specialized, specialized software stands out more than the big intimidating applications that touch on everything. Granted the specialized package needs to play nicely with other applications.

I can see lightwave become a VFX and pre-viz only application, which is kinda where it started anyway. There is a lot that could be added to make it even more friendly for such work but I'll stop there for now.

erikals
06-22-2014, 07:09 PM
agree, i suggested this 10 years ago...

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

jasonwestmas
06-22-2014, 07:32 PM
agree, i suggested this 10 years ago...

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

Yah me too Erik, hehe. Well more like 6 years ago for me. Same conversations seem to be coming up again and again. :)

3D Kiwi
06-22-2014, 07:41 PM
I think Newtek are in a bad place with Lightwave at the moment and with the speed that other apps are improving I can’t see how they could catch up.
When Autodesk killed Softimage I can’t recall anyone on the SI forums saying they are going to Lightwave or even looking at it. Most were thinking about Modo and Houdini. And the others were going to Maya or C4D.
I started with Lightwave and I do have a soft spot for it but it’s like watching your kid getting worse and worse grades at school and there is nothing you can do.
I took another look at Lightwave after the death of Si and nothing really has changed. Sure there are some new features but nothing I couldn’t do in Version 7 of XSI. Workflow wise it is terrible. Not just the spilt apps but modeller is slow. I used to love modelling in Lightwave but after SI I can’t stand it.
And Layout is so slow with large scenes. Chews up so much memory. I had a large obj I created from ICE in Si and thought I would see how it went in Lightwave .Thinking of using Lightwave as a renderer. It used over 7 gig of ram to load it and that wasn’t even subpatched. It crashed when I tried that. Si just laughed at it. I found Blender handled it better than lightwave.
The only way I can see Lightwave gaining in the market again is to focus on freelancers and small companies. I can’t see anyone knocking Maya and Houdini from the highend market. But I think there is a need for an all in one app that small companies can use. They need to focus on sorting out the workflow, unification of the two apps, Speed and stability. Then adding the features people need. Fluids, Smoke, Good particle system, Render passes, Improve rendering (I found it was slower than Mental Ray for SSS and other things).
Funny as I type this all I can think is Blender is doing this already.

RebelHill
06-22-2014, 07:46 PM
Well... here's my take...

LW, primarily as an app, tends to get used on fast turnaround or low budget projects. Most all the studios I do work for or have worked with fit this model. They're small shops, doing a few flashy graphics for commercials, tv spots, low budget movies, etc. They in turn get work from clients who want some robot thing, or a dancing chicken or whatnot, and the houses rocking the like of maya and houdini are quoting them prices from tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars for such (because such places are setup to do that kinda work for the like of sony or pepsi, or the other big spenders). Thus, the smaller guys (who'd ordinarily be limited to after fx work) get to knock out some decent enough 3D that actually meets these lower end client's requirements.

This market though is ever more going to the like of c4D (as we've seen talked of)... and LW is waning. Sure you can take the time to improve LW, and make up for many of its lacklustre features, but by the time youve done so, the competition has also moved on, and you're still behind. Falling behind in a race is always easy... catching back up is exceptionally difficult, and many times only possible at all if the opponent in front stumbles, and does you a favour by their own failing. The softimage story is the one to take to heart here... It fell behind, and despite roaring back with an AWESOME offering... it was unable to make ground, and died... Whattaya think LWs chances are by compare??

So here's what Id do if it were me (which is gonna sound like HERESY... but hey).

Id ABANDON lw as an application altogether. No modelling, no animation... adios!

What Id keep... would be the one thing that has been LWs shining strength, both in the past, and today... its renderer.

We all keep hearing, and banging on about cloth this, muslces that, fluids the other... but yknow what... Creating and manipulating polys and points is the EASY bit of 3D. By far the GREATEST technical challenge... is rendering them, and doing it well.

LW has a fantastic renderer, it has a fantastic sufacing and material system. Such good quality, so easy to learn and to use, its the one thing that sets LW apart from the competition more than anything else. So with that, Id turn LW into nothing more than a plugin renderer for maya, max, houdini, you name it. Get it working with as many other content creation apps as possible. Make it the most hardy, mean production render you can. Pour all future effort and development resources into that, gaining some added acceleration and advancement along the way, and when it was done... continue to sell it for around a grand or so, WITH the current offering of unlimited render nodes.

That'd put a hot pepper right up the arse of the like of arnold and vray, potentially displacing them almost entirely and gobbling up their market share.

Then... once the momentum, and recognition is there, if the will and want still exist at NT to have their own full cg app... A whole new beast could be created and built around it, pulling on all the latest technologies of the time. Doing that would actually allow LW to increase its industry position and respect, without having to go dark, and without having to slog its way through the swamp of a piecemeal rewrite which is only slowing it down even more, causing it to lose more and more ground every day.

3D Kiwi
06-22-2014, 07:51 PM
It would just be the same story as now. Lightwaves renderer would have to compete with Arnold, Redshift, VRay, MentalRay and all the others that seam to come out on a monthly basis.

RebelHill
06-22-2014, 07:59 PM
I dont think so... because in this scenario... it actually COULD compete with those. As LW stands, its in competition with the like of max, maya, et al, and its getting kicked to death.

erikals
06-22-2014, 08:16 PM
LightWave's big fall is on the animation side, and i think the LW3DG knows this...

true i never got why they didn't "export" the render engine though... :l

KurtF
06-22-2014, 08:16 PM
You can buy a stand alone rendering solution like Thea or Arion fairly cheaply now. So that might put a damper on focusing on the renderer as a sole product.

I have been watching Lightwave for years. Didn't buy it however. I don't like the user interface. Too cluttered, too ugly, too 1990's, too convoluted to do any work. Sorry. Just my feelings as a non-customer. I was thrilled when I saw screen shots for Core. Clean, lean interface. Should have happened, but didn't, so there you go. Now Chronosculpt comes out and one of the things people give it praise for, a clean interface.

I'll keep watching. Maybe things will improve. You never know.

erikals
06-22-2014, 08:24 PM
...Maybe things will improve. You never know.

they will, we just have to give it X amount of time...

hey, don't ask me about the X... \ :]

3D Kiwi
06-22-2014, 08:44 PM
I dont think so... because in this scenario... it actually COULD compete with those. As LW stands, its in competition with the like of max, maya, et al, and its getting kicked to death.

They would have to do something pretty special to compete esp in the highend market where i guess the money would be. And it would still have to deal with the reputation that the name lightwave would bring.

erikals
06-22-2014, 08:57 PM
one thing about the LightWave render engine though, is that it's quite slow on interior renders... :l

maybe with some additional code, they could improve the quality, speed it up...

Snosrap
06-22-2014, 09:16 PM
Here are some the question I present to all here.
What would be that X FEATURE that would be that magical bullet that would make LW the darling of the 3d World?
It is no longer a question of features - it's about workflows.

erikals
06-22-2014, 09:34 PM
if LightWave got splendid fluids for a cheap price, i would call that an X Feature...

if LightWave got splendid face rigging / animation for a cheap price, i would call that an X Feature...

if LightWave got "out of this world" rounding tools, i would call that an X Feature...

if LightWave got a RealTime fantastic render engine, i would call that an X Feature...

etc, etc...


so, i wouldn't exclude the X Feature...

jeric_synergy
06-22-2014, 10:14 PM
Make an app that is NOT intimidating to the masses and gets a rep for its ease of use.
Hahahahahahahahahaha. Don't you know there's things you MUST painfully learn, and any attempted amelioration is misguided heresy? Foolish mortal!

robertoortiz
06-22-2014, 10:40 PM
It is no longer a question of features - it's about workflows.

Yup...
speaking of NEW workflows.
http://forums.newtek.com/showthread.php?142256-Promising-Animation-Package-%28nukeygara%29&p=1387809#post1387809

RebelHill
06-23-2014, 07:04 AM
Make an app that is NOT intimidating to the masses and gets a rep for its ease of use.

Don't you know there's things you MUST painfully learn, and any attempted amelioration is misguided heresy? Foolish mortal!

Yes... it IS foolish.

You want easy and non technical, such apps exist... daz, poser, etc.

At the end of the day, you can either have easy and non-technical on one end or you can have felxibility and versatility on the other, and you have to pitch somewhere in between. Moving more towards one desired outcome will deprive you of the other.

Roberto... You always go on about your computer science background, so quite frankly... you should know better. When you construct anything for an "external" user, be that a language, an sdk/api, a word processor, or a 3d app... you make its "interface" by obfuscating and blocking access to to the internals... you ABSTRACT the internal tech from the user to create usability. But the more heavily you do this... the "easier" you make it for the user, the more you have to blackbox away, and thus the less overall control the user has. The more you want the user to have flexibility and access to deeper levels of control, the more you have to expose, and by extension, the more technically savvy the user needs to be in order to work with all those details and stitch them together properly to arrive at their desired outcome.

So rather than just continuing to stir the same ol pot over and over... why dont you USE your background to actually suggest some ways in which this can be done programtically? Why not start putting things together that actually show HOW you can make something that is both flexible, powerful and versatile whilst being simple for the artist to understand without having to grapple with technicalities... Actually put your money where your mouth is??

And Jeric... you seem to speak as if talk of this nature is some kind of resistance to having it all the way you'd like it, like those of us who do know how to work with technical apps want to limit the ability of others to get on board and keep it all for ourselves... and this Im afraid is utterly untrue. The simple fact is that we understand the behind the scenes detail which go on, and why certain things need to be done a certain way to provide ANY amount of user control over a certain thing. You say how you're not so technically knowledgable... and thats FINE... no-one is judging you for that (or at least speaking for myself Im not)... But what you should do is try to realise that the simple fact evidenced here is that other folks DO know, and understand these things which you do not... and thus you should just accept and trust their experience and expertise on these matters. Would you tell your pilot how he should be flying the plane... or your doctor which drugs he should be prescribing??

All you do otherwise is antagonise such folk and make them not want to help you.

You either want an app that is felxible and versatile, and gives you the levels of access and freedom to create most anything you can imagine and make it "look" anyway you want... Or you want something that requires very little effort or know how and which does it all for you (which means being locked into "presets" which you have little or no control over). Please, just make your choice, go with the appropriate app, and apply yourself to using it the way it needs to be used.

pinkmouse
06-23-2014, 07:21 AM
Craig, I agree with 99% of what you say, but it's not all or nothing. Take nodal rotations for instance, using radians. Most people are not familiar with radians, and find them hard to understand and manipulate, so why not have a toggle that switches them to degrees instead? Every animator is familiar with that terminolgy and just can get on and work.

There could also be better use of presets. Yes by all means have all the complex stuff there in the background for those that want it, but a few well chosen preset settings, (that could then be pulled apart as a learning exercise), would make many tools much simpler to get into.

RebelHill
06-23-2014, 07:39 AM
...it's not all or nothing.
No, ofc not... its a spectrum... and you have to pitch usability vs technicality somewhere upon it. On one extreme is paint by number, where you dont even have the freedom to choose your colours, on the other is having to code absolutely everything yourself. Id submit that neither of these extremes is preferable to either the artist or the technician. But the fact is that you cant exist at 2 points on the line at the same time, and moving a tool more to one direction, prohibits you from "access" to the benefits brought by the other.


Take nodal rotations for instance, using radians. Most people are not familiar with radians, and find them hard to understand and manipulate, so why not have a toggle that switches them to degrees instead?

Sure... But radians are just another way of enumerating the circle... we're already used to multiple ways... degrees, hours/minutes, north south east west. If you can understand a ruler thats marked in cm and one marked in inches... then you can understand this. Also, in some situations one is better than the other. Degrees are usually easier when dealaing with turns, or directions in space... radians are easier when dealing with geometric properties. But at the end, as you say... why not switch?? All you need is a rads to degs (and ideally a degs to rads) node which you can plug in if you desire. Sure there's no native one, and yes maybe there should be... but there are 3rd party ones, and you can make one anytime you like natively using either a multiply or divide node (depending which way you're going)... done!

sampei
06-23-2014, 07:55 AM
RebelHill, out of curiosity, what do you think about modo?

RebelHill
06-23-2014, 08:30 AM
I guess Im not in a great position to offer much evaluation having not used modo much... all I can really go on are the demos seen and shown by lux. And on that basis, it appears to me little different than the other "high end" 3D apps, but like them all, treads its own line and finds its own balance.

I'll mention for example, some of its rigging tools.

Take joint placement... you can just click, click, click on a mesh and boom... joints in place. Now that's great, but its not ALL perfect is it... Because when it "auto places" joints like this it does so by evaluating the point positions of the mesh, placing the joint at the average position, which is, put simply, central. But ofc, that's NOT always where you want a joint placed, dead centre of a "mass", so there's a limitation created by ease of use. Ofc, I have no doubt whatsoever that the user is able to go in an manually tweak, and edit these joint positions. Grab, move... no biggie. BUT... this means the user MUST possess a "technical" knowledge of ideal positioning for joints at different parts of a character, and the ramifications brought about by that positioning.

Secondly... what about the base rotations of those joints. There is NO WAY for the computer to "know" how a joint need be oriented for a given part, so it MUST also allow users to go and define these parameters for themselves, which by extension again requires the user to understand how rotations are dealt with in 3D space, and the outcomes that will be faced further down the line by animators working with those rotations.

So... even though it seems on the surface all nice and simple and artist friendly... there MUST be more going on, which requires the user to know more advanced stuff, or if there are no such options or operations available to the user, then they will be severely restricted in the outcomes they can produce.

Sure, you can also point out aspects of the UI design, how pretty it looks, how well laid out it is, etc... but this is just "beauty" and its only skin deep. Whilst there's nothing wrong with having it (indeed even a lot right with so having), it doesnt change the fundamental workings going on that need to be understood and dealt with by the user

RebelHill
06-23-2014, 09:07 AM
They would have to do something pretty special to compete esp in the highend market where i guess the money would be. And it would still have to deal with the reputation that the name lightwave would bring.

The "special" is the unlimited render node offering. You keep that, and its a full on broadside against those other renderers.

jwiede
06-23-2014, 09:20 AM
Newtek leaves Lightwave 12 pretty much the same as Lightwave 11. Autodesk will be waiting to pounce. Within a year Autodesk will buy up Lightwave.

I agree with you that LW12 will make or break LW3DG, but I disagree with the fail endgame. What is it that you imagine Lightwave offers that Autodesk wants/needs?

H_Molla
06-23-2014, 09:43 AM
I agree with you that LW12 will make or break LW3DG, but I disagree with the fail endgame. What is it that you imagine Lightwave offers that Autodesk wants/needs?


In my opinion, what lightwave offer that autodesk might be interested with is the fast qality of the built in rendering and the way lightwave displacement work.
Also the way node's work with each part and how can non technical people start do work with it as1 2 3.

jwiede
06-23-2014, 09:57 AM
LW has a fantastic renderer, it has a fantastic sufacing and material system. Such good quality, so easy to learn and to use, its the one thing that sets LW apart from the competition more than anything else. So with that, Id turn LW into nothing more than a plugin renderer for maya, max, houdini, you name it. Get it working with as many other content creation apps as possible. Make it the most hardy, mean production render you can. Pour all future effort and development resources into that, gaining some added acceleration and advancement along the way, and when it was done... continue to sell it for around a grand or so, WITH the current offering of unlimited render nodes.
I just can't see LW selling as an independent rendering plugin without first adding buckets. It's a feature ALL of its competitors already offer, and the inability to split work across buckets across render nodes (something, again, most of its competitors offer today) would put it at a serious competitive and performant disadvantage.

I doubt most potential customers will believe LW's surfacing is "fantastic" given just the existing content and materials available (for good reason). All evidence seems to suggest that providing documentation and other supporting content is something LW3DG do poorly (to be clear: when they do it they can do it well, but they refuse to do enough, so net result is inadequate==poor). LW3DG would also need to put serious effort into providing a catalog of production-quality modern materials, useful compound nodes, and so forth -- I'm a bit doubtful they have that kind of effort in them, even if their survival depended on it (and in part because they don't ever seem to believe it does).

That said, I DO agree with you that the scenario you propose is about the only realistic one left. Based on the productivity shown over last few years, and what we've received as customers, their chances of adding enough fast enough in order to regain a frontal position in the market is exceptionally unlikely. I hoped otherwise for a long time, but when I realized the years of productivity shortfall manifested Chronosculpt, instead of some immense LW retrofitting effort behind the scenes, my hopes mostly died, alas.

jwiede
06-23-2014, 10:17 AM
They would have to do something pretty special to compete esp in the highend market where i guess the money would be. And it would still have to deal with the reputation that the name lightwave would bring.
Even in the rendering market, they're technically well behind the pack: Buckets, working caustics, micropoly displacement, more efficient/performant GI solutions (LC, etc), importance mapping, OpenSubDiv (Maxwell, Vray, and others have added or are now adding in-renderer support) and so forth. Just adding bucket rendering alone (a "must have", IMO, since it gates so many other aspects, like work-splitting and efficient memory usage) would be a major internal rework based on what the SDK indicates the internals look like today. And that's not even counting the necessary backing catalogs of production-level materials, documentation, etc. that all the others already offer, and which would need to be available for LW to actually compete.

hrgiger
06-23-2014, 10:22 AM
I like Rebel Hill's take on going to a renderer but i dont see NT going for that one. It might be interesting for them to do a render engine for other apps in addition to continuing to develop LightWave...I just dont if it would be realistic for them to do so with their resources.

jwiede
06-23-2014, 10:24 AM
The "special" is the unlimited render node offering. You keep that, and its a full on broadside against those other renderers.

What kind of pricing are you imagining for LW-as-renderer such that LW3DG can continue to give away free unlimited render nodes? That approach doesn't seem very sustainable as a business model (esp. given the current trends in cloud-based and commercial farming).

After all, most current third-party renderers already give 3-5 free render nodes per full license seat, that's more than enough free nodes to cover most indie and small to medium business situations. They only really care about paid render nodes in large installation situations.

jeric_synergy
06-23-2014, 10:32 AM
Craig, you no doubt use.. what are they called? "include files"? ...to ease your way in programming. That's all I'm suggesting with my "kindergarten/tinkertoy/Mechanno" compound nodes scheme: training wheels for nodal users.

Now, you may or may not be correct in the stance that networks are too particular to specific productions to make this worthwhile, but it's worth a conversation. Certainly the few networks I've saved have come in convenient over and over: if I watch another tutorial with someone creating Yet Another Rainbow Gradient I may scream. And limitations can be listed in the Node Comment field.

And in no way did I suggest the removal of the nuts and bolts, nitty-gritty nodes that would make up these tinker toy blocks: in fact, I'm counting on them to be 'nodal gateway drugs' that people would customize to better fit their specific production needs.

We can have it both ways: all the current nodes, AND the shiny tinker toy easy conglomerations. We don't expect electronics workers to work with AND, NAND and NOR gates any more.

alexos
06-23-2014, 10:34 AM
Well... here's my take...

...The softimage story is the one to take to heart here... It fell behind, and despite roaring back with an AWESOME offering... it was unable to make ground, and died... Whattaya think LWs chances are by compare??

But wasn't XSI, especially in its latest iterations, aimed at a rather niche market? I mean - Max and C4D are both "generalist" apps that evolved to cover what, 90% of the architectural rendering /motion graphics markets, and that's an awful lot of people. Hell, "traditional" graphic designers here consider Cinema as the _only_ possible solution - and apart from the software's innate strenghts, that's also because of the enormous amount of readily available assets. Which, incidentally, has been one of LW's major shortcomings for the last, say, 10 years or so.


What Id keep... would be the one thing that has been LWs shining strength, both in the past, and today... its renderer.

I... Don't know about that. In its current state, LW's renderer wouldn't be very palatable, I fear: other solutions offer more features, the same speed if not more and, often enough, less hassle (plus the aforementioned assets). You are probably biased by your own hyper-competence, but when it comes to surfacing why would the average, one-man-band 3D artist want to learn how to connect 20 or so nodes in order to get a nice-looking brushed aluminum, when in a different engine it's just three clicks away?
Of course this might - let's say will - turn into a non-issue when they release the new LW engine and it turns out to be three times better than Vray and Octane put together - yay! But at that point, ditching the app altogether could alienate the relatively few diehard users (it sure would alienate me) with no guarantee of gaining new ones through the "plug-in" scheme... Rock and a hard place indeed.

ADP.

RebelHill
06-23-2014, 10:43 AM
What kind of pricing are you imagining for LW-as-renderer such that LW3DG can continue to give away free unlimited render nodes? That approach doesn't seem very sustainable as a business model (esp. given the current trends in cloud-based and commercial farming)..

More or less around current pricing... If they can survive presently selling LW around the grand-ish mark, with a few hundred for upgrades... then they can survive doing the same if they sold a stand alone renderer that increased their market share... even more so given the lower overheads which would be involved in developing and upkeeping such a "smaller" product.

As for the "LWs render doesnt have do this presently"... arguments... I DID specify that some months of hardcore (no pun intended) development to make it a true production beast would be needed before such a release.

RebelHill
06-23-2014, 11:08 AM
Craig, you no doubt use.. what are they called? "include files"? ...to ease your way in programming. That's all I'm suggesting with my "kindergarten/tinkertoy/Mechanno" compound nodes scheme: training wheels for nodal users.

Now, you may or may not be correct in the stance that networks are too particular to specific productions to make this worthwhile, but it's worth a conversation. Certainly the few networks I've saved have come in convenient over and over: if I watch another tutorial with someone creating Yet Another Rainbow Gradient I may scream.

I presume you mean "libs", but, actually... no. In python I write EVRYTHING from the ground up (development from first principles you might say)... and in LS Ive written my own wrapper for the existing sdk that fits the things Im creating and makes the "higher level" coding more concise, flexible and take up fewer lines. (as a refernce for this, RHiggit V1 used near 200,000 lines of code, V2, which is vastly superior, is less than 10,000). Now obv... thats just me, and it may not be the most recommendable way for others to go working... but creating your own adaptations that work specifically for the things you're creating WILL give you efficiency savings.

And so sure... nothing wrong with compounds, presets, whatever you like... but again, the number of possible, useful things you COULD potentially ask for is near infinite. How do you begin to approach that?? Obviously, you need to start by prioritising... but how do you do that??

I submit that the best way is to allow users to do it for themselves, and to SHARE these outcomes (which ofc you can do via .nod files). Sure, if certain ones are more "common" or useful, by all means, native-ise them (which is what material nodes are, which is what some of the math operation nodes are, etc)... but you CANNOT expect it to be all things to all people... and what you CERTAINLY cannot do, is to go renaming things, and overriding established conventions to try and match the lowest common denomeator (yes, that's a math pun, sorry).

The dot product, whilst delivering a comparison between vectors... is only ONE kind of comparison, others are possible with other methods... Do you not think that having nodes called, "vec compare type 1, vec compare type2" etc would be even MORE confusing?

Once again... you HAVE to try and work within standard known and established conventions, not try and reinvent them.

cresshead
06-23-2014, 11:15 AM
the only competitive "edge" lightwave can really pull out is pricing.

If it remains the lowest cost "full" 3d app then there's always a market for it depending on how close the competition is pricing their own apps.

however there's another card to lean on...it's not owned by a huge corporation...you're less likely to get done over in some licence change eula on an update.
render node licence capabilities is another good card compared to arnold and vray but the renderer in lightwave needs a large overhaul now too though.

lightwave really could do with adding GPU rendering....hint flippin hint....and a bucket renderer...micropoly displacement....i'm sure many more people can chime in.

jwiede
06-23-2014, 11:24 AM
Meh, never mind, I've talked myself out of this idea's viability, because on top of the technical issues already mentioned, LW3DG would also need to provide tightly-integrated plugins for all the major packages to support Lightwave as a third-party external renderer. That's a lot of work, esp. as most require material integration, translation of various geometry types that LW doesn't support native, and so forth. Even if they just took Max or Maya, as the most rich packages, they'd individually still be a huge amount of integration work.

In any case, weren't a few big studios already more or less using LW in precisely such a "render-only" capacity, but have since stopped doing so? If their stated reasons (which seemed to focus on render tech features and overall quality) were legit, there's little reason for them to misrepresent them, so that seems to more or less confirm that LW's "immediate" viability as a commercial third-party render engine in its current state is questionable. Which brings us back to chasing the pack w.r.t. technical features, and the likely losing battle therein.

I believe there was a time when repackaging LW as a render engine would have been a viable plan. Unfortunately, I strongly suspect those studios ceasing to use LW marked the end of that period -- that was the "tipping point" where staying with LW-as-renderer became competitively prohibitive compared to other external renderers' offerings.

P.S. Forgot render proxies in the technical "missing features" list, that's a huge one for arch-viz and certain other genres.

RebelHill
06-23-2014, 11:31 AM
...weren't a few big studios already more or less using LW in precisely such a "render-only" capacity, but have since stopped doing so? If their stated reasons (which seemed to focus on render tech features and overall quality) were legit, there's little reason for them to misrepresent them, so that seems to more or less confirm that LW's "immediate" viability as a commercial third-party render engine in its current state is questionable.

A large part of the issue has also been the workflow of having to exchange data between the apps, and the fact that you had to re-do certain things exclusively in LW... If you have it as a plugin, which is integrted, you dont have that issue. The lights, the material system, etc, are all in the host app, just like the other plugin renderers.

And again... Im not suggesting doing it with the renderer in its current state as of today... youd need to "heighten" it, take it forward, and pour the development resources into doing that which would enable you to get to the necessary point much much faster.

Lewis
06-23-2014, 12:58 PM
A
And again... Im not suggesting doing it with the renderer in its current state as of today... youd need to "heighten" it, take it forward, and pour the development resources into doing that which would enable you to get to the necessary point much much faster.

OK, let's pretend for a moment that this scenario (LW s rende ronly) is viable (although i highly doubt) how do you see LW current DEVS all suddenly start workign on Rendering code when they are more or less specialized for diferent aspects (modeling, surfacing, animating, Gui, I/O stuff, Languages (phyton,Lscript..) etc. etc.). Should LWG3D fire 90% of it's current DEVS and keep just ones who are specialized in coding render engine for last decade or more or what ?

probiner
06-23-2014, 01:08 PM
You either want an app that is felxible and versatile, and gives you the levels of access and freedom to create most anything you can imagine and make it "look" anyway you want... Or you want something that requires very little effort or know how and which does it all for you (which means being locked into "presets" which you have little or no control over). Please, just make your choice, go with the appropriate app, and apply yourself to using it the way it needs to be used.

With ICE compounds you'd get both. They are not antagonist realities, it just takes a lot of effort to interface both.
The more the two co-exist, the more users that were just receivers of solutions will ascend to being also makers of solutions.

Cheers

hrgiger
06-23-2014, 01:16 PM
OK, let's pretend for a moment that this scenario (LW s rende ronly) is viable (although i highly doubt) how do you see LW current DEVS all suddenly start workign on Rendering code when they are more or less specialized for diferent aspects (modeling, surfacing, animating, Gui, I/O stuff, Languages (phyton,Lscript..) etc. etc.). Should LWG3D fire 90% of it's current DEVS and keep just ones who are specialized in coding render engine for last decade or more or what ?

Lewis is right. If they wanted to create a render engine, they'd more then likely have to hire more developers experienced or who specialized in rendering and shading systems. Again, I think it would be interesting to see them do this, but in addition to continuing development on LightWave as well.

People assume that LW has to compete head to head to Autodesk to survive and I just don't think that's the case. LightWave is a lower cost alternative which I think can be a solution for amateurs, smaller studios, students, freelancers and a host of others. In addition, who uses one app anymore? LightWave has been improving its I/O options and that means it can still be part of a larger pipeline. If LW12 can improve some of the legacy issues, it can still have a viable market for at least the near future.

RebelHill
06-23-2014, 01:20 PM
Should LWG3D fire 90% of it's current DEVS and keep just ones who are specialized in coding render engine for last decade or more or what ?

IF... you went that route then... yes. No point in keeping folk who cant contribute.

RebelHill
06-23-2014, 01:24 PM
With ICE compounds you'd get both. They are not antagonist realities, it just takes a lot of effort to interface both.

Well, no, not really. Because someone has to create those compounds/tools in the first instance, which requires the technical skill... And whilst that compound can be used by someone lacking such skills, they're forced to use the compound as it comes, as a "pre-fab". If they want or need something more specialised for a given shot or situation, then they still need the technical skill to go in and make such modifications.

The compounding is simply the act of abstraction.

Lewis
06-23-2014, 01:25 PM
Also what about Rendition? They once already tried to do 3rd party render engine and for most used CGI app in the world (Photoshop) which didn't have that option (good render engine) at all back then and it didn't work (ended afer first release) so why would this time work for Maya, MAX and such apps which already have dozens of options :).

Phil
06-23-2014, 01:34 PM
I don't see this happening. With rendering moving towards GPU, the market is getting even more challenging.

cresshead
06-23-2014, 01:57 PM
lightwave competes with pricing itself below other apps, it's that simple.

If lightwave costs around the same as the yearly subscription cost is for 3dsmax, or maya it will do okay.

probiner
06-23-2014, 02:14 PM
Well, no, not really. Because someone has to create those compounds/tools in the first instance, which requires the technical skill... And whilst that compound can be used by someone lacking such skills, they're forced to use the compound as it comes, as a "pre-fab". If they want or need something more specialised for a given shot or situation, then they still need the technical skill to go in and make such modifications.

The compounding is simply the act of abstraction.

Well yeah and someone had to make the whole app in the first place too ;) You're fleeing from your point: Which was the user should have to choose between an application that would do what they want in an easy and limited fashion or an application that would require a lot from them but they would have a lot of control. For you there's a split and in the market there's certainly those segments. My point is that you can have an app that can bridge different types of users so there's no choice to be done. That does not exclude the difference they have, just states they can all feel at home in the same app. XSI was a great middle of the road. Now you see a more clear split, as more technical people conside Houdini, others Modo, etc...

The compounding is not a simple act of abstraction precisely because it's not a private closed act where "that node magically does that". It's actually quite concrete as you have access to all the pipeline that produces the results you were having with the exposed controls. That's not to say that every user will be able to change it, but it's much more open to change and personal curiosity and development than if it were closed building blocks of code, like it's the case most times, presets or no presets.

Plus for people with some level of abstraction, Nodes are a much friendly way to deal with data, than lines of code. Nodes usually have a more obvious flow, while code, you need to read and get the order and operations. In nodes contexts are built in, so syntax errors are greatly reduced, etc.

You can have both users in the same application. One trying get a compounded solution, another using it and who knows, opening the compoud, re-use it, be inspired by it, etc. They are as stuck as they want, all depends of what level they want to reach. The app itself shouldn't be the question, though it is of course if it doesn't support this bridge.

Cheers

RebelHill
06-23-2014, 02:49 PM
ofc... but again, tahts just presetting.

You can run maya, max anything you like using pre-fab models, materials, etc. But if those are the only components a user can operate, they're still limited.

jeric_synergy
06-23-2014, 02:51 PM
Is there an echo in here?

probiner
06-23-2014, 02:53 PM
ofc... but again, tahts just presetting.

You can run maya, max anything you like using pre-fab models, materials, etc. But if those are the only components a user can operate, they're still limited.

No, what I refered to, since my first post, relating to ICE, it is coding. Unless making an LScript and UI for you it's presetting and that's something every user is looking for to do...

Plus every XSI property page (like a Compound exposed paramenters) allows you to save all parameters' values/options into a preset and load in the same fashion . Now that's the simplistic preset, which people can also share.

Mind you there are reasons why the current compounds in LW won't do that bridge.

Cheers

robertoortiz
06-23-2014, 03:01 PM
No what I refered since the first post, relating to ICE, it is coding. Unless making an LScript and UI for you it's preseting and that's something every user is looking for to do...

I think to help the conversation let me post some videos...


The power of ice is that yes you could acces everything, but you could package those compounds nodes with ease.
You add an interface and you are ready to go.

LOOK T THIS VIDEO GUYS..It is impressive as heck.
Tutorial - Build Your Own Bézier Curve Interpolation in Softimage ICE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aiV2QUgLGr0

It shows how ICE was a tool to DEVELOP tools.

For me not having this type of funtionality with nodes, it is like the argument of why you need to build a NEW CAR everytime you go out to buy milk.

RebelHill
06-23-2014, 03:05 PM
No, what I refered to, since my first post, relating to ICE, it is coding. Unless making an LScript and UI for you it's presetting and that's something every user is looking for to do...

For the user who's uses that tool as a black box, and has no idea or ability as how to build it for themselves... then yes it is presetting.

robertoortiz
06-23-2014, 03:12 PM
For the user who's uses that tool as a black box, and has no idea or ability as how to build it for themselves... then yes it is presetting.

And honestly I have no vclue why Presettings/ Wizards/ Automatization/ Compounding or any tool that makes workflows FASTER get such bad raps.

probiner
06-23-2014, 03:29 PM
For the user who's uses that tool as a black box, and has no idea or ability as how to build it for themselves... then yes it is presetting.

That's the same for plugins, scripts and the whole app for that matter. You said it right, the user chosen not to open it... There's enviorments between Houdini and Poser...

Cheers

pinkmouse
06-23-2014, 03:30 PM
Craig, why this almost visceral dislike of presets? :)

RebelHill
06-23-2014, 03:31 PM
And honestly I have no vclue why Presettings/ Wizards/ Automatization/ Compounding or any tool that makes workflows FASTER get such bad raps.

Because it reduces VERSATILITY and FLEXIBILITY for the user... they're LOCKED IN to using those presets, and what few adjustments the creator has chosen to expose, reducing their ability to "create anything" (presuming ofc either a user who's technical skills are at the point where they cant do it, or conversely an app/tool which doesnt allow deeper access for the power user to get their hands on).

If you dont get that... then there no hope, mate. Go buy poser.

RebelHill
06-23-2014, 03:33 PM
Craig, why this almost visceral dislike of presets? :)

There is no such dislike...

But if you build an app which is designed solely around using presets then as a user you are LIMITED in what you can achieve!!!

And I know what'll be said... an app can have BOTH... presets and deeper access. Sure... no problem, but then when you demo and market such an app, you HAVE to show BOTH sides of it, and the second you show off all the complicated, technical stuff you can do, people will cry its not artist friendly, its intimidating etc.

pinkmouse
06-23-2014, 03:34 PM
Who says they're locked in? The old layer based texturing had presets for common materials, yet didn't stop anyone from digging in and getting their hands dirty.

edit: cross post! :)

jeric_synergy
06-23-2014, 03:37 PM
And honestly I have no vclue why Presettings/ Wizards/ Automatization/ Compounding or any tool that makes workflows FASTER get such bad raps.
I think it is just a personal stance.

Non-black-box 'compounding', where the user can get in and tinker, is a huge asset to learning.

RebelHill
06-23-2014, 03:38 PM
again... if the complicated is there to be used... people say its too complicated.

You CAN use LW (or maya, or max, or even houdini) using NOTHING but presets... meshes, textures, etc... Does THAT make them appear artist friendly to these folk who say its all so intimidating looking??

robertoortiz
06-23-2014, 03:42 PM
Who says they're locked in? The old layer based texturing had presets for common materials, yet didn't stop anyone from digging in and getting their hands dirty.

edit: cross post! :)

And to be frank, I use it to this day.
And I am not the only one.
You can pick presets assign them with ease, and later take them apart.

RebelHill
06-23-2014, 03:47 PM
So... if you're quite happy using presets in LW... then it IS already artist friendly, and you argument that its intimidating to artists must be wrong.

hrgiger
06-23-2014, 04:07 PM
I have always worried that the system suffers at the cost of making things too artist friendly in regards to LightWave.

3D Kiwi
06-23-2014, 04:19 PM
The "special" is the unlimited render node offering. You keep that, and its a full on broadside against those other renderers.

All apps apart from mental ray in maya are unlimited nodes, I think mayas internal renderer is also unlimited. Lightwave is limited to 999 unless that has changed. And they would go broke in a second. Imagine weta deciding to use Lightwaves renderer on there 1000+ node farm and all they have to pay is $995. If they offered it as a 3rd party renderer for other apps they would have to charge per node to make any money.

jeric_synergy
06-23-2014, 04:26 PM
So... if you're quite happy using presets in LW... then it IS already artist friendly, and you argument that its intimidating to artists must be wrong.
Except, some parts of LW are noticeably short in the preset department.

When I want a quick metallic Surface, I don't construct it from scratch: I use the Metals category of Surface Presets. And if it's Not Quite Right, I open it up and toss in a spanner or two.

Same with (notional) Compound Node Presets: I'd try 'em out, see if they fit, read the Comment Field, open it up and do whatever needs doing to make it fit the current production.

8~ This is like cigarettes: one may never convince the roll-your-own-ers that the factory made taste just fine.

lightscape
06-23-2014, 04:34 PM
Someone developing an auto rigger and did a crowd sim, the IDEA should be acceptable to you or atleast open minded that people are using, looking for fast workflow even with limitations.
Prefabs, presets, etc are all just "systems" for end users.
Systems that make work faster and simpler that can fullfill users needs but not necessarily 100% of users needs is still advantageous to a product.

We have
-a flocking system in lightwave that can easily do motion effects, school of fish, etc. Who wouldn't want that?
-an autorigger system that elimimates atleast 2 days of work. Nobody wants it?

We could have
-have material presets that look good right from the start.
-a boolean render that just works
-a mograph system that's easier to use than what an open ended node editor offers.
-a muscle system that's easy to use as other appz.

This saved me some time and did it in seconds. Using traditional bones or IKB would be more time than I would like to spend on it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQUABXSNLm8
It might be a mundane task but if you're doing some mechanical animation projects and attaching it at odd mechanical parts, it helps reduce a lot of time rigging a bunch of these and attaching them. Its a system/module/tool/function that helps speed up work.
Want a quick secondary animation for a limb, add a modifier to give it that bounce effect. No need to create complex nodes or rig with bones. But its possible if users want to doing it manually. A book rigger has been requested a bunch of times for lightwave, 3dmax has a one click book rigger. is it useful to all, probably not but is it useful period, yes.

If newtek wants an edge they should create a list of what people do most with their app (right now people want a mograph module) and implement those functions/systems/modules to get back that lw is fast at doing things reputation. C4D, 3dmax has been continously adding small tools and it might be "beneath" some people who wants to do it from scratch but its clearly useful for other users who just wants to get the job done, go home early and enjoy the outdoors.

RebelHill
06-23-2014, 04:35 PM
Except, some parts of LW are noticeably short in the preset department.

You want presets... go to preset central... You want preset meshes/animated characters... go to mixamo, daz, etc... wheres the problem??

I know... NT should be supplying them as standard... Ok... so every minute they spend sat down making presets is a minute taken away from developing the program itself... where would you prefer they spend that time??

RebelHill
06-23-2014, 04:42 PM
Someone developing an auto rigger and did a crowd sim, the IDEA should be acceptable to you or atleast open minded that people are using, looking for fast workflow even with limitations.

sigh...

AGAIN!!! Im not saying theres anything wrong with having presets or prefabs or anything else like that... My point is simply that if thats what your app is "built" out of... then its poser, or no better than, and you're HEAVILY restricted in what you can achieve.

The argument is that all these "complex/manual" tools are too confusing for artists, and should be made "easier"... which means "presets". If you include BOTH presets AND the higher level acces... people see that higher level access, and still say its too intimidating. Thus, it only APPEARS to be nice and easy to these folk once you REMOVE that higher level toolset, leaving behind just the presets... and again, you're back to using poser.

pinkmouse
06-23-2014, 04:53 PM
I know... NT should be supplying them as standard... Ok... so every minute they spend sat down making presets is a minute taken away from developing the program itself... where would you prefer they spend that time??

But at the moment they're doing neither. Look at Bullet. It's missing half the stuff that an advanced user wants, yet judging by the number of help posts on the forums, it's totally intimidating to beginners. No-one wins.

jasonwestmas
06-23-2014, 05:06 PM
I have always worried that the system suffers at the cost of making things too artist friendly in regards to LightWave.

I hear generic terms thrown around as if they are gospel a lot. Terms like "intuitive" or "artistic" but really those terms are not definite enough to bear any weight to make a set of tools powerful, flexible and yet comprehensive with some study. For example, I used zbrush 1.5 and while I didn't find it intuitive I was still able to use it and make things (Things I WANTED stylistically to make NOT what was FORCED on me by the software) with it. Zbrush 4 came around ( which btw is considered to be artist friendly in many ways) and the program is now a totally different animal and people still hate to use it despite the power it has. The question should be how much studying is necessary for the typical user to become comfortable with tool-set X. The answer I often tell people is that you won't know until you try it! Some people abandon good software too quickly I find, impatience isn't exactly a rare attribute in humanity.

btw, imo a good preset is one that QUICKLY gives you the nuts and bolts all neatly package together and lets me add more parts to it later without breaking too much of the current preset.

RebelHill
06-23-2014, 05:08 PM
You're quite right... bullett is a half baked implementation.

So where should NT place their time?? Putting together "prefab" sims that get noobs and "artists" going without having spend any large amounts of time at it... or on developing it to the point where its actually a good implementation?

prometheus
06-23-2014, 05:32 PM
You want presets... go to preset central... You want preset meshes/animated characters... go to mixamo, daz, etc... wheres the problem??

I know... NT should be supplying them as standard... Ok... so every minute they spend sat down making presets is a minute taken away from developing the program itself... where would you prefer they spend that time??

lightwave presets included with lightwave 11.6 is really to old news, they canīt even bother to include preset central in the lightwave community pages beneath plugins etc, and besides..preset central seem to be dying slowly if you look at the amount of new presets showing up.

They should make some more effort on including good presets a little bit more really, I wouldnīt be surprised if modo contains a whold lot more in this area.
Apart from that, we lack the drag and drop on to surfaces, and you also have to get rid of the ..do you really want to replace surface..what the...
those are the problem I see with preset shelf as it has been for a while and as it still is.
I prefer the team to spend time on both including good preset a good way to apply them and not neglecting the development due to lack of time because they got to develop the software itself and donīt have the time to work on content, just doesnīt make sense.

Heck I have even tried to give the lw team a carrot if they provide a link to the presetcentral page at least , then I will upload surfaces or hyvpervoxels or something...but nothing happened, or they still have earwax, and now it is too late:) at least for the nearest future.

Ztreem
06-23-2014, 05:38 PM
Its not about taking away features or hide options or controls it's all about workflows. I wouldn't mind if lw 12 had no new features at all and only adjusted all things in lw for better workflows.
For example in object properties you can add a display comment to the object, but you can not add a comment in that gizmo or in the object properties panel. You have to go to an endless list of plugins in the additional menu. This is just stupid. It should be a comment field in the object properties and a tick box for showing it. Lw is full of these stupid workflows that just eat time for nothing.

erikals
06-23-2014, 05:41 PM
the more features that are built on to of each other, the more of a mess...
you can see limitations even with the C4D text tool, and the more Maxon adds the "oh, wouldn't it be nice if..." feature,
the more the text tool actually gets limited... fast, yes, to do what it does best, but the more code they put into that one feature, the more cluttered / limited that tool is going to be...

so, sometimes it's good with a "Make Beautiful Text Fast" button, but not always, and the more functions Maxon squeeze into the C4D text tool, the more limited it will get, but not only that, at one point, it will be impossible to add further features, or changes, or alterations without adding modified duplicated code.

the question is where to stop / begin...

Rebel wrote some related good posts on the last pages...

erikals
06-23-2014, 05:43 PM
http://forums.newtek.com/images/misc/quote_icon.pngZtreem
Lw is full of these stupid workflows that just eat time for nothing...

just to add, application X is full of these stupid workflows that just eat time for nothing...
from what i read at various forums...

but sure, some LightWave things should and will be improved

erikals
06-23-2014, 05:49 PM
http://forums.newtek.com/images/misc/quote_icon.pngprometheus
They should make some more effort on including good presets a little bit more really, I wouldn't be surprised if modo contains a whole lot more in this area.

some of the LightWave programers are working 20 hours a day, i think the rest of the LightWave team is busy too. so, well... i guess they could try, but they seem to have their hands full...

i don't think they would have the time, but maybe they could contact person X and buy some presets from him... might be a good idea...

prometheus
06-23-2014, 05:59 PM
some of the LightWave programers are working 20 hours a day, so, well... i guess they could try, but they seem to have their hands full...

That doesnīt help getting new presets or getting somewhere with hypervoxels, itīs just a matter of priority order on whatīs most important of course, the modo team has managed both presets for objects,scenes,and a new hypervoxels system more advanced, and dynamic instancing, bullet particles, scultping,sculpting of particles etc and a lot lot more, it just seems that the lightwave development still donīt pick up any decent speed after what I thought could be some sort of development slow down threshold after the core misdirection, it isnīt kicking of in faster development speed, maybe it is unfair to compare to the amount of features the modo team releases, so how do they go about it, working 30 hours a day, or having a larger team or what?

Presets additions might be very well dependent on what we submit, so maybe it just need some attention or redirection for submission of new stuff at least for the surface contents and hypervoxels, the make it easier to apply surface presets will not come to us by itself..they canīt get away from the fact so many people dislikes how to apply presets as it is today, and will eventually have to do something about it sooner or later anyway.
I wish they had the same insane rate like you have erikals... when putting up your video notes on youtube:)

I think the lw team does a good job, but it still takes a long long time to get anywere, I have always thought so and thought they someday would reach another speed level..not sure what else to say about it, if it is good since we get properly done stuff or if it simply is a too slow development rate compared to other software teams, maybe it is just the modo team that is quite special in how fast they bring forward new stuff? I donīt know.
Maybe 20 hours are too much, cut it in time and get more sleep or relaxation and be more effective and inventive....perhaps:)

jeric_synergy
06-23-2014, 06:13 PM
It should be a comment field in the object properties and a tick box for showing it. Lw is full of these stupid workflows that just eat time for nothing.
Ooooo, that's a good one.

And it could be "Always/When Selected/On Hover/Group Members" for display options. "Group Members" would be, when one is displayed, all its brethren also are displayed. --Actually, I guess that would have to be radio buttons, ie.:



[_] Always
[_] When Selected
[_] On Hover
[_] Group Members


[{group name}]

(restraining myself from adding "Cursor hover radius" under "[_] On Hover"....)

robertoortiz
06-23-2014, 06:22 PM
To anyone in the LW team reading this thread...
We ALL DO respect your hard work. Trust me on that one.

Ztreem
06-23-2014, 06:40 PM
To anyone in the LW team reading this thread...
We ALL DO respect your hard work. Trust me on that one.

Yes, we do respect all the hard work and its not the lw3d groups fault that they have a lot of legacy code and bad workflows in the app. but it's their responsibility to fix it and make sure its as good as possible for the users.

RebelHill
06-23-2014, 06:45 PM
There's also a difference between respecting and appreciating the fact that someone is working as hard as they can, and giving a real world evaluation of whether or not the product of those labours is good enough.

hrgiger
06-23-2014, 07:16 PM
I hear generic terms thrown around as if they are gospel a lot. Terms like "intuitive" or "artistic" but really those terms are not definite enough to bear any weight to make a set of tools powerful, flexible and yet comprehensive with some study. For example, I used zbrush 1.5 and while I didn't find it intuitive I was still able to use it and make things (Things I WANTED stylistically to make NOT what was FORCED on me by the software) with it. Zbrush 4 came around ( which btw is considered to be artist friendly in many ways) and the program is now a totally different animal and people still hate to use it despite the power it has. The question should be how much studying is necessary for the typical user to become comfortable with tool-set X. The answer I often tell people is that you won't know until you try it! Some people abandon good software too quickly I find, impatience isn't exactly a rare attribute in humanity.

btw, imo a good preset is one that QUICKLY gives you the nuts and bolts all neatly package together and lets me add more parts to it later without breaking too much of the current preset.

Well, Zbrush 1.5 was less of a 3D tool then Zbrush 4 so that right off the bat makes it a lot less intuitive as far as 3D goes. But beyond that, the interface for the most part is largely unchanged except for changes made as new tools (and workflows) were added. Zbrush 4 also probably seems a lot more intuitive to you now because you've been using it for longer. It took me a long time to get my head around the way Zbrush works and I started with Version 2.

Presets are useful and even ideal in some cases but systems should not be built on them. They should be added as an afterthought to a well thought out system that lets you have access to every parameter and every little nuance.

But then again... my comment on user friendliness has more to do with this idea that everything put into LightWave must be "LightWavey". CORE was a great example of that term being OVERUSED. No no, CORE is not LightWavey enough. Well what the hell does that mean? Here we are talking about how LightWave 12 better be something special to keep it competitive with other applications and yet you still have people wanting to keep the "LightWaveyness" and making things simpler and simpler for the artist, but very little talk about what LightWave would need to actually be competitive with other applications. It might actually require more change then a lot of LightWave users are wiling to accept.

Megalodon2.0
06-23-2014, 07:56 PM
But then again... my comment on user friendliness has more to do with this idea that everything put into LightWave must be "LightWavey". CORE was a great example of that term being OVERUSED. No no, CORE is not LightWavey enough. Well what the hell does that mean? Here we are talking about how LightWave 12 better be something special to keep it competitive with other applications and yet you still have people wanting to keep the "LightWaveyness" and making things simpler and simpler for the artist, but very little talk about what LightWave would need to actually be competitive with other applications. It might actually require more change then a lot of LightWave users are wiling to accept.

Spot on. :thumbsup:

RebelHill
06-23-2014, 08:00 PM
If you dont change LW... people complain its not changing... if you change it, people complain its being changed.

Talk about a recipe for inaction.

jasonwestmas
06-23-2014, 08:27 PM
Well, Zbrush 1.5 was less of a 3D tool then Zbrush 4 so that right off the bat makes it a lot less intuitive as far as 3D goes. But beyond that, the interface for the most part is largely unchanged except for changes made as new tools (and workflows) were added. Zbrush 4 also probably seems a lot more intuitive to you now because you've been using it for longer. It took me a long time to get my head around the way Zbrush works and I started with Version 2.

Presets are useful and even ideal in some cases but systems should not be built on them. They should be added as an afterthought to a well thought out system that lets you have access to every parameter and every little nuance.

But then again... my comment on user friendliness has more to do with this idea that everything put into LightWave must be "LightWavey". CORE was a great example of that term being OVERUSED. No no, CORE is not LightWavey enough. Well what the hell does that mean? Here we are talking about how LightWave 12 better be something special to keep it competitive with other applications and yet you still have people wanting to keep the "LightWaveyness" and making things simpler and simpler for the artist, but very little talk about what LightWave would need to actually be competitive with other applications. It might actually require more change then a lot of LightWave users are wiling to accept.

Yes, this is exactly my point "Make it Lightwavy" just like other generic terms like "artist friendly" and "more intuitive". I'm sure I don't know what that means exactly, nor does anyone else. But yet for some reason these terms hold a lot more weight than they should in the marketing field.

To further expand on my zbrush example: Software that has a lot of power and flexibility in it USUALLY has a steeper learning curve despite the many lables that are applied to it. I feel like zbrush helps me as an artist but I'm pretty sure others would not agree if they don't have as much experience with it as I do. Does this mean that we should avoid software just because it doesn't appear to be intuitive in the beginning. (Rhetorical).

Anyway, your comments just reminded me of past conversations again. :)

Oedo 808
06-23-2014, 10:28 PM
Updating LightWave and maintaining consistency with the UI aren't mutually exclusive, if things aren't changed for no good reason then we won't see any issues.

Of course they might be wise to change the UI, that alone will convince some people that something amazing is happening, and even if it isn't, we can blame the subsequent failure on the fact that people didn't like the crap new UI for the next five years.

Win win.

jwiede
06-23-2014, 10:40 PM
OK, let's pretend for a moment that this scenario (LW s rende ronly) is viable (although i highly doubt) how do you see LW current DEVS all suddenly start workign on Rendering code when they are more or less specialized for diferent aspects (modeling, surfacing, animating, Gui, I/O stuff, Languages (phyton,Lscript..) etc. etc.). Should LWG3D fire 90% of it's current DEVS and keep just ones who are specialized in coding render engine for last decade or more or what ?
Well, in fairness, when you look at the entirety of work needed to make integrated render plugins, you'll find many parallels: GUI, IO, surfacing, scripting, etc. all have similar requirements, they'd just be done in the context of the host app's SDK, instead of being done in LW. However, as I noted earlier, getting everyone up to useful speed on Max or Maya's SDKs enough to do a top-class render integration would be a huge effort in and of itself, even before the real work of producing said integration could occur. Factor in all the render improvements needed, the existing competitive picture for render plugins (which is a pretty mature niche, and thus means customers have fairly large expectations in terms of seamless integration between host and renderer) and it just doesn't seem to work out any more viable chasing that pack than the current "chasing 3D packages" is playing out, IMO.

jwiede
06-23-2014, 10:49 PM
Because it reduces VERSATILITY and FLEXIBILITY for the user... they're LOCKED IN to using those presets, and what few adjustments the creator has chosen to expose, reducing their ability to "create anything" (presuming ofc either a user who's technical skills are at the point where they cant do it, or conversely an app/tool which doesnt allow deeper access for the power user to get their hands on).
In the case of compound nodes, that's patently not the case however. Users can easily begin learning and using the compound components as canned function, but as they learn more and their needs grow, they become increasingly capable of internally modifying the network inside the compound to suit their needs. Eventually they reach the point of being able to release their own preset+compound assemblies. It gives a scale of support from intiial "clueless" user to expert just looking for a quick, viable template to specialize to their needs.

Problem is, LW's current implementation of compounds isn't really well-suited to such a distribution model, esp. in terms of how parameters are handled (and presetting same). For such an approach to work in LW, it needs significant rework to how node options are presented, how catalogs of compounds are presented, and how presets interact with both prior elements.

jwiede
06-23-2014, 11:02 PM
You want presets... go to preset central... You want preset meshes/animated characters... go to mixamo, daz, etc... wheres the problem??

I know... NT should be supplying them as standard... Ok... so every minute they spend sat down making presets is a minute taken away from developing the program itself... where would you prefer they spend that time??
Two notes:

1. Unfortunately, very little of the content at Preset Central would qualify as being even near the level of, say, most Maxwell material catalog entries, pro-targeted Vray materials (and now shaders), MetaSL shaders, etc. and that's what is really needed in order to make LW a compelling product.

2. You're presuming it would be the same developers making the presets, but frankly, LW3DG would deserve to fail if they used developers for making presets. Presets should be created by (likely bespoke) artists who understand what kinds of presets would be best bang-for-buck in terms of providing novices with starting points, and providing pros with good template starting points to speed creating their own customized results. While there would be cost involved, that cost doesn't automatically have to come from the existing developers' salary pool.

jeric_synergy
06-23-2014, 11:03 PM
in the case of compound nodes, that's patently not the case however. Users can easily begin learning and using the compound components as canned function, but as they learn more and their needs grow, they become increasingly capable of internally modifying the network inside the compound to suit their needs. Eventually they reach the point of being able to release their own preset+compound assemblies. It gives a scale of support from intiial "clueless" user to expert just looking for a quick, viable template to specialize to their needs.
Exactly.

jwiede
06-23-2014, 11:52 PM
some of the LightWave programers are working 20 hours a day

If LW3DG mgmt knows and supports such developer work patterns, they deserve precisely what they'll get -- it won't be "increased productivity" by any rational definition of the term.

erikals
06-24-2014, 01:29 AM
some, not all.
for those who do i'm sure it's voluntary and that is was a slightly of an exaggerated statement.

from what i recall, Vaughan hardly sleeps, never saw it affect his work... some are super-human...

Johnny9ball
06-24-2014, 02:19 AM
I may have an interesting perspective on Lightwave V12. I have been using Lightwave since V8 and loving it. Just personal hobbyist with aspirations for future work in the 3D industry. I have upgraded from 9 to 10 to 11 and have been out of 3D since a little into 11 I am now ready to get back into 3D time and money now allowing me to. Every upgrade I felt as if I was moving forward with new tools and features to use all the while also keeping an eye on the other packages. I had high hopes for Core and was glad to be a Hardcore member. It really looked like the next step for Lightwave.

Now I initially got into Lightwave cause it was the affordable package which had a lot of nice features. Back in the V8-9 days I wasn't so money liquid and had to choose something based on value and what I wanted to accomplish. I appreciate what Lightwave gives for the money spent. I'm a little older and a bit more financially free so it opens up possibilities I didn't have before.

Although I have looked at the other packages I have never tried them till now. Getting back into 3D I am at the point where I need to decide. The Hardcore pricing is still in effect for me so an upgrade to V12 would not even be an issue. But now the money isn't as a big an issue to me now compared to when I was younger. Yes a different 3D program that uses a unified approach can be very expensive compared just upgrading to V12 but I am starting to question continuing spending money even on a less expensive upgrade option (Hardcore) on staying with Lightwave compared to spending the extra scratch now to move to another platform.

I am now starting to use other packages. I installed a different 3D program that uses a unified approach (student verison) yesterday and started messing around. Looking at YouTube videos feature sets, tools, effects, animation, ect.. Even though if I move to another platform the cost would be substantially higher I am asking myself what I want to put my money into now. I'm between two paths and I need Lightwave to do something big to get me to follow.

After using this other 3D program for just a couple days the first thing that smacks me in the face is its unification. First thing I did was make a simple model and pour particles all over it (I smiled, grinned ear to ear actually) I have what I want in one window. If Lightwave was able give me just that alone...the ability to work and create without having to go back and forth through Hub, Layout, Modeler, to envision and create what I want it would be a huge step in helping me make a decision. I have never used another 3D program before but the idea of just having one program and one modeling, texturing, lighting, animation, effects window, makes me feel free. Using a unified program for two days has my mind freed from constraints that were embedded into it by the duality of Lightwave. Now I am certainly not saying I can do everything in one window of course there are limitations with every program you still need to open and move through multiple menus and windows to work.

Modeler and Layout split my creative conscious into two people. I use one half while in Modeler while solving the geometrical puzzles of modeling and surfacing, then when I fire up layout I use the other half to start lighting, staging, animating, and using effects. There is a marked time when I switch between modeler to layout and in the transition I have to save files load files, load scenes, save scenes, launch layout/hub (ect...), then when I want to model I move back to Modeler use the tools there sync it over to layout use the tools there and so on and so forth. There is a duality between the two places and a duality to the way I have to think when using it. I have to fight with myself sometimes to go back to modeler and make changes or just live with it for now and keep going in layout and "take care of it later".

With a unified program I feel different my brain feels more unified as I work. Everything is right there in front of me. It feels very different. I feel like my brain is working harder than it needs to in the dual environment of Modeler and Layout.

After using a unified program I need V12 of Lightwave to show me more. I need tools and workflow that can bring my creative mind together again. Lightwave needs to shed some of its old ideas. That is what I was hoping for in Core. I'm still hoping for something in V12 that will give me that feeling of being one creative person. Instead of two creative people that needs Hub to shuttle ideas in between.

I am between two choices now and I have not committed one way or the other way as of yet. Using other programs has shown me a difference in workflow that I enjoy very much. I am more financially free to make a decision based on more expensive options. I need to see Lightwave show me changes not just additional things. I don't know what V12 has in store I'm really looking forward to see what will be in it and what Lightwave will be like in the future.

alexos
06-24-2014, 02:53 AM
You want presets... go to preset central... You want preset meshes/animated characters... go to mixamo, daz, etc... wheres the problem??

Quite frankly, that they're often not good enough. Mind, I rarely use presets (for some reason I always end up creating surfaces/environments/stuff from scratch) but it's a fact that a whole lot of people want as many presets as humanly possible - the success of sites such as Greyscalegorilla or the behemoth Evermotion, whose archmodel collection has reached volume 144, is a clear indicator. Of course 3rd parties will only step in when they believe it's profitable, and I guess right now LW doesn't have the userbase for that, so another vicious circle there.


I know... NT should be supplying them as standard... Ok... so every minute they spend sat down making presets is a minute taken away from developing the program itself... where would you prefer they spend that time??

True. On the other hand having the same surface presets that were in LW 6.0 is commercially unacceptable - might as well get rid of them entirely. Bit of the same problem we've been having with documentation, which has been patched on for a long time now and I'm rather certain can be very discouraging from a new user's perspective; but it's improved immensely in the latest iterations and, unless I'm mistaken, I believe BV is rewriting everything from scratch, so I trust this whole presets thing will be taken care of as well... If not for other reasons cos, if they change the rendering engine, the old ones might not work at all :P

ADP.

RebelHill
06-24-2014, 05:05 AM
In the case of compound nodes, that's patently not the case however. Users can easily begin learning and using the compound components as canned function, but as they learn more and their needs grow, they become increasingly capable of internally modifying the network inside the compound to suit their needs.

Yes... ofc... the argument was against those who dont want to have such node network creation, because users see it and consider it too hard looking.


1. Unfortunately, very little of the content at Preset Central would qualify as being even near the level of, say, most Maxwell material catalog entries.

2. You're presuming it would be the same developers making the presets.

1. Maybe, maybe not... but thats something you cant blame on NT, cos that all comes from users.

2. For the sake of example, sure I was... but obv you're right, that'd be stupid. However, if NT go and hire artists to produce such, then that's eating up cash which could have been spent on hiring another developer to work on the actual program, or on better marketing, or on acquisitions to try and pack LW out with more stuff fast, etc, etc. And if there's one thing that NT def seem to have gotten wrong in the past, its been spreading themselves too thin, trying to do too much, with too little, and delivering meagre output as a result.

pinkmouse
06-24-2014, 05:49 AM
... And if there's one thing that NT def seem to have gotten wrong in the past, its been spreading themselves too thin, trying to do too much, with too little, and delivering meagre output as a result.

Which comes back to my earlier point, money. If you're selling a "budget" product, then there's no way it can have all the features of high end ones. Something has to go so other aspects can be done properly, or the price has to go up.

Personally, I'd vote for ignoring all this CA nonsense... :D

prometheus
06-24-2014, 05:58 AM
Well, Zbrush 1.5 was less of a 3D tool then Zbrush 4 so that right off the bat makes it a lot less intuitive as far as 3D goes. But beyond that, the interface for the most part is largely unchanged except for changes made as new tools (and workflows) were added. Zbrush 4 also probably seems a lot more intuitive to you now because you've been using it for longer. It took me a long time to get my head around the way Zbrush works and I started with Version 2.

Presets are useful and even ideal in some cases but systems should not be built on them. They should be added as an afterthought to a well thought out system that lets you have access to every parameter and every little nuance.

But then again... my comment on user friendliness has more to do with this idea that everything put into LightWave must be "LightWavey". CORE was a great example of that term being OVERUSED. No no, CORE is not LightWavey enough. Well what the hell does that mean? Here we are talking about how LightWave 12 better be something special to keep it competitive with other applications and yet you still have people wanting to keep the "LightWaveyness" and making things simpler and simpler for the artist, but very little talk about what LightWave would need to actually be competitive with other applications. It might actually require more change then a lot of LightWave users are wiling to accept.

uhmmm...well I was one of those not very fond of how core was so different, and wanted some of the lightwave feel back, and I still want lightwave to change, but it must be done with some careful respect to how lightwave "feels" which wasnīt the case in core...if not, just drop it and make another software alongside and call it something else, which core in fact was, not a rewrite that maintained a lot of stuff we were dependent on.

if you wanīt to restore something..you donīt paint a van gog over a da vinci painting.
A full undo system, so we can drag and drop surfaces without the annoying do you really want to requester..new preset handling system, fixing window sizing, docking,collapse-expand menus, ...I donīt see why that canīt be delivered in the lightwave "feel" spirit.
new selection modes "item" like modo has, will make it easier to work with unconnected geometry in the same layers, rather thand going select connected, a rectangle marque for more accurate straight selections rather than lasso only.

prometheus
06-24-2014, 06:05 AM
If you dont change LW... people complain its not changing... if you change it, people complain its being changed.

Talk about a recipe for inaction.

Itīs all about how the transform is taking place, not about the fact something is or must be changed, se my above post.
People complain about changes not being good or should have been different, and some stuff might not have needed that change, Itīs just to simple to narrow it down to a general change no change point of view I think.

RebelHill
06-24-2014, 06:20 AM
Which comes back to my earlier point, money. If you're selling a "budget" product, then there's no way it can have all the features of high end ones. Something has to go

Yep, yep... that's basically the exact angle from which Im coming. The ONLY way to catch up in a race that you've fallen behind in, is to start dumping weight.

Perhaps instead then a better idea might be to "do a modo"... Dump LW, take Chronosculpt, and build out from there with high end, next gen modelling, making ALL aspect animatable as you go, and gradually develop toward a full blown app.

jeric_synergy
06-24-2014, 07:10 AM
, or on better marketing,
Actually, it IS marketing.

3D Kiwi
06-24-2014, 07:21 AM
Yep, yep... that's basically the exact angle from which Im coming. The ONLY way to catch up in a race that you've fallen behind in, is to start dumping weight.

Perhaps instead then a better idea might be to "do a modo"... Dump LW, take Chronosculpt, and build out from there with high end, next gen modelling, making ALL aspect animatable as you go, and gradually develop toward a full blown app.

The problem with doing that is I dont think Newtek have a strong enough brand to last while they do that. People will simple move on to other apps. And it would take them ages, i mean over 10 years to get a complete app, going by there current speed.

I remember maybe back in the lightwave 7 days i suggested Newtek goes quite on lightwave, create a new killer 3D app and rename it something else. Nobody liked that idea then :-)

And out of intrest how is Chronosculpt going. I cant remember seeing it used at any large studios?

jasonwestmas
06-24-2014, 08:31 AM
As soon as they get rid of all the alembic bugs Chrono will start to get popular I'm sure.

jeric_synergy
06-24-2014, 08:57 AM
Is Alembic that important, or was that snark???

Phil
06-24-2014, 11:31 AM
And it would take them ages, i mean over 10 years to get a complete app, going by there current speed.

That would put their pace on a similar footing as modo, for reference. It's taken ~10 years to become a near fully fledged application.

djlithium
06-24-2014, 12:09 PM
It's been suggested to me that I don't reply to this thread as it seems my comments are at times controversial or combative.

These issues can be addressed. But who will address them?

djlithium
06-24-2014, 12:15 PM
In other words... Are we all in this together or are we going to continue to bicker?

erikals
06-24-2014, 12:31 PM
It's been suggested to me that I don't reply to this thread as it seems my comments are at times controversial or combative.

eh? wouldn't say that... not sure who would...


In other words... Are we all in this together or are we going to continue to bicker?

we are all in this together!
if someone disagrees, speak now or forever hold your piece

djlithium
06-24-2014, 12:54 PM
eh? wouldn't say that... not sure who would...



we are all in this together!
if someone disagrees, speak now or forever hold your piece

Oh well you know me Erikals... :)

jwiede
06-24-2014, 01:34 PM
Which comes back to my earlier point, money. If you're selling a "budget" product, then there's no way it can have all the features of high end ones. Something has to go so other aspects can be done properly, or the price has to go up.

Personally, I'd vote for ignoring all this CA nonsense... :D

The problem there is that the low-end packages' capabilities are rising quickly. Even both Daz Studio and Poser offer non-linear/tracked-mixed animation these days, and there isn't much market below them (nor room to fit below their pricing, really). There are other areas where their capabilities have met or exceeded LW's as well (and many more, obviously, where they're still behind). Problem is, in order to retain a rather substantial price boost above that tier of programs, LW has to be able to provide an across-the-board boost in capabilities over them, and that's proving difficult to sustain.

robertoortiz
06-24-2014, 02:02 PM
The problem there is that the low-end packages' capabilities are rising quickly. Even both Daz Studio and Poser offer non-linear/tracked-mixed animation these days, and there isn't much market below them (nor room to fit below their pricing, really). There are other areas where their capabilities have met or exceeded LW's as well (and many more, obviously, where they're still behind). Problem is, in order to retain a rather substantial price boost above that tier of programs, LW has to be able to provide an across-the-board boost in capabilities over them, and that's proving difficult to sustain.
Add to that that Character animation is becoming a requirement.
The low ball of requirements for the CG industry are a thing of the past,(as in flying logos) and clients are becoming more and more demanding of what they want.

BTW, The whole lets make LW into a dedicated renderer is something that was tried before and if failed miserably.
Back in the mid 00s I remember talking to someone at NT, dismissed my concerns and he just straight up told me that If I needed to do character animation I should skip the app. I remember that back in those days they concentrated A LOT in selling the renderer.

The thing is that Lightwave has a lot of the elements required to do character decent character animation.
The problem is that those elements are either half baked or they are not integrated in a seamless way. And also it lacks Non lineal tools / capabilities in the program.

Megalodon2.0
06-24-2014, 02:27 PM
if you wanīt to restore something..you donīt paint a van gog over a da vinci painting.
CORE wasn't about "restoring" it was about actually competing and seriously improving LW.

Your analogy is inaccurate. It WOULD have been accurate perhaps 15 year ago. Now it's more like painting a van gogh over your dad's painting - his painting is VERY good, but nowhere near the quality of a Master. Better to move over to another fresh canvas and begin again. Too late now of course.

Burndog
06-24-2014, 02:47 PM
Liquids. That would at give us feature others still don't have and that we can't emulate at all.

Thumbs up for Liquids!

bobakabob
06-24-2014, 04:10 PM
I've been using LW for nearly 20 years and the same old arguments and speculations have never ceased raging on these forums. Lightwave has always been the underdog of the 3d world as it's cheap but very fast in production and freelance work with a fantastic renderer. Sure it has flaws ( e.g. ageing particles) but what software hasn't? (Modo's 'shader tree'; C4d's expense). I wish the LW3D group well in continuing to develop this often criminally underrated creative tool so enthusiastically. They've done a great job so far with Genoma, instancing, dynamics and nodal surfacing. The last few upgrades have been productive and above all stable and reliable. Before anyone lobs that tired expression 'fanboy' my way I use Maya at work (and love it) but Lightwave and Zbrush for freelance work and pleasure. 3d users have never had it so good with so many tools out there from Autodesk to Zbrush. Surely enthusiasts and professionals are combining toolsets more these days so why expect LW to do everything brilliantly for a mere thousand squid? LW3dG's business strategy of developing autonomous complementary apps such as Chronosculpt is a wise step forward.

jasonwestmas
06-24-2014, 04:46 PM
"Genoma, instancing, dynamics and nodal surfacing" Thumbs up on two of those (compared to the competition) tool-sets, but 50% is failing. However I don't expect LW to do everything and I wish LW3DG or whoever is in charge doesn't try to do that. If it can't be done "completely" (when compared to the top implementations out there) within a few releases then I think it should be left out, same goes for modo, maya etc.

prometheus
06-24-2014, 06:12 PM
CORE wasn't about "restoring" it was about actually competing and seriously improving LW.

Your analogy is inaccurate. It WOULD have been accurate perhaps 15 year ago. Now it's more like painting a van gogh over your dad's painting - his painting is VERY good, but nowhere near the quality of a Master. Better to move over to another fresh canvas and begin again. Too late now of course.

I donīt think you understand me or maybe I donīt understand you here, core wasnīt really about improving lw..not as I saw it, it was more of a completly new program showing up, thus you donīt follow the guidelines of how the old painting is done or in this case how the software is built, therefore I mentioned van gogh not using the same pallette and what else in order to follow a davinci painting and improve on it, it wasnīt by any means a comparison between which painter or paintings are the best.
All this in mind of how core was to much of a different program compared to the "old lightwave" wether or not someone actually wanted that and some others didnīt, doesnīt matter now..itīs history.

Snosrap
06-24-2014, 07:44 PM
some, not all.
for those who do i'm sure it's voluntary and that is was a slightly of an exaggerated statement.

from what i recall, Vaughan hardly sleeps, never saw it affect his work... some are super-human... Are you talking about William? He's no engineer - never was. The about in LW is pretty generous with the term engineer. Of the 17 names listed only 9 or so actually do deep code work, the others may provide some basic scripting but most I believe deal with quality and course direction.

Megalodon2.0
06-24-2014, 09:22 PM
wether or not someone actually wanted that and some others didnīt, doesnīt matter now..itīs history.
THIS I will agree with.

The rest has already been discussed to death.

tyrot
06-25-2014, 12:55 AM
can NT develop some plugins based on chrono...on various sections of the program and later on these plugins actually come together and replace old core?

for example.. a new motion mixer, a new hypervoxel module, a new liquid module...which has import and export capabilities to current layout...


also..some basic modeling tools with high poly accounts..after completing the mesh we can export lwo and continue with current modeler...


i mean series of plugins with same core may actually replace old core in time.. just like building restoration...

especially modeler needs this approach..

pinkmouse
06-25-2014, 02:24 AM
Doing some R&D on a "space warp" scene, usual camera pointing straight down cone, animated texture stuff. Render time per 1080 frame, 16.2 seconds. Add ONE hypervoxel to get some 3D whispyness going on, render time jumps up to 9m 32. No GI, one light in scene, HV not intersecting camera, quality set to low...

lightscape
06-25-2014, 03:39 AM
Yep, yep... that's basically the exact angle from which Im coming. The ONLY way to catch up in a race that you've fallen behind in, is to start dumping weight.

Perhaps instead then a better idea might be to "do a modo"... Dump LW, take Chronosculpt, and build out from there with high end, next gen modelling, making ALL aspect animatable as you go, and gradually develop toward a full blown app.

Dump lightwave and do a modo. But modo even after a decade doesn't even have much presence in the industry. The modo usergroups across the globe is almost non-existant and small.

Do a softimage, same result its dead soon even though its widely accepted as the most modern 3d app today.
Core as a product would have been dead 2 years ago if it continued. People are not looking for new platforms anymore when there are a lot that are already mature and more importantly, well established.

I do agree NT needs a good product that can serve a bigger userbase. Its not chronosculpt. Its the renderer. The income from the lightwave renderer can offset the lack of income from the main lightwave product. They should really franchise it, or develop a plugin for other 3d apps and give unlimited rendernodes for a cheap price.

3D Kiwi
06-25-2014, 04:57 AM
As i said in a previous post. They would have to charge for nodes. They would go broke otherwise. Lets say they charged $500 per node. (I think arnold is $950 per node) And someone with a farm of ten will pay $5000. Otherwise they charge $950 for unlimited nodes and that is all they get. Just wouldnt work.

And they are still going into compitition with the likes of arnold and vray etc. Lightwaves renderer is good but its not great. Would need alot of work to compete.

robertoortiz
06-25-2014, 06:44 AM
Dump lightwave and do a modo. But modo even after a decade doesn't even have much presence in the industry. The modo usergroups across the globe is almost non-existant and small.

Do a softimage, same result its dead soon even though its widely accepted as the most modern 3d app today.
Core as a product would have been dead 2 years ago if it continued. People are not looking for new platforms anymore when there are a lot that are already mature and more importantly, well established.

I do agree NT needs a good product that can serve a bigger userbase. Its not chronosculpt. Its the renderer. The income from the lightwave renderer can offset the lack of income from the main lightwave product. They should really franchise it, or develop a plugin for other 3d apps and give unlimited rendernodes for a cheap price.
We agree up to a point. Yes Lw needs to seel more seats, but going after the pro 3d Market is a losing proposition.
for starters that market is in control of Autodesk.
The thing is that NT has the respect of a market and for some reason it tend to be looked down by 3d people like us.
Video Production.
I honestly think Lightwave should go back to its roots. And By roots I mean the toaster days.
A tool for video professionals.
That market eclipses the 3D pro market by a country mile.


can NT develop some plugins based on chrono...on various sections of the program and later on these plugins actually come together and replace old core?
.

I have always said that next gen Lw should use the chrosnosculpt COre code as its basis. And while you are at it, develop some realtime 3d tools/3d Fonts tools for the tricaster
using the same code.

prometheus
06-25-2014, 12:37 PM
Doing some R&D on a "space warp" scene, usual camera pointing straight down cone, animated texture stuff. Render time per 1080 frame, 16.2 seconds. Add ONE hypervoxel to get some 3D whispyness going on, render time jumps up to 9m 32. No GI, one light in scene, HV not intersecting camera, quality set to low...

try using a volumetric light in sprite mode, or geometry with some nice lumninosity gradients instead, or use a lot of particles in a particle field instead, it would take some time too particle settle and cook depending on amount of particles, but rendering it with
tiny tiny particles could be nice...
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/--qsAKoosIb4/UvaC7YJ7PhI/AAAAAAAACP0/sfACJOh_bgc/w1280-h720-no/3+mil+turbulence+%2526+color+correction+and+glow+c opy.jpg
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-nyJwp7mR7lY/T_SHhGpHnqI/AAAAAAAACO0/0m9DMgbwStk/w1597-h563-no/Nebula+post+processing+photoshop.jpg
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-UeCS2Pjmme8/UvZ6FNVHxvI/AAAAAAAACH0/G0cc4VPrcag/w1598-h786-no/Neb3.jpg

https://plus.google.com/photos/100944643113557837045/albums/5978023753291712209/5978109511988887058?banner=pwa&pid=5978109511988887058&oid=100944643113557837045
https://plus.google.com/photos/100944643113557837045/albums/5978023753291712209?banner=pwa

pinkmouse
06-25-2014, 02:35 PM
Nice. Still playing with mine. Its starting to look good, especially as a still, but need to play with the bloom a bit, it's too intense when animated. Also might add some more layers of geometry, and maybe some layers of particles:

prometheus
06-25-2014, 03:35 PM
Nice. Still playing with mine. Its starting to look good, especially as a still, but need to play with the bloom a bit, it's too intense when animated. Also might add some more layers of geometry, and maybe some layers of particles:

we are going out of topic here for a couple of posts, but what type of space warp are you aiming at, some sort of contact wormhole?...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=scBY3cVyeyA

pinkmouse
06-25-2014, 04:04 PM
we are going out of topic here for a couple of posts...

I think it's a good distraction, gives people time to marshal their thoughts :)


... but what type of space warp are you aiming at, some sort of contact wormhole?...


Something like that clip, but without all the twirly tunnel/wormhole stuff, that's just so clichéd. The first few seconds comes closest. But the colour's all wrong. And there's too much smoke, ...:)

Here's the vid, be aware of YT artifacts.


http://youtu.be/--8FONo3Qeg

lightscape
06-26-2014, 10:22 PM
I have always said that next gen Lw should use the chrosnosculpt COre code as its basis.

Chrono is a deadend. Not everyone has the time to wait a decade for a product to mature. Maya, houdini, c4d, blender are not standing still and by the time chrono has equalled lightwave toolset, those appz will have developed leaps and bound over chrono.

3D Kiwi
06-26-2014, 10:28 PM
For all we know they are still working on CORE and just wanted to take it out of the public eye.

hazmat777
06-26-2014, 11:59 PM
For all we know they are still working on CORE and just wanted to take it out of the public eye.

Wouldn't that be unlikely without Jay Roth still around?

3D Kiwi
06-27-2014, 12:00 AM
No idea just thought it would be fun idea to put out there :-)

hrgiger
06-27-2014, 08:00 AM
I'm sure its not CORE they are working on. But I wouldn't be surprised if they had been working on new architecture in the background that will make its way into LightWave eventually.

jeric_synergy
06-27-2014, 12:56 PM
Architecture is the ONE thing we can be sure they're working on: it's the frickin' roadblock to everything else.

probiner
06-27-2014, 04:43 PM
Architecture is the one thing we hope they're working on: it's the hardest stepping stone to everything else.
Fixed!

erikals
06-27-2014, 06:22 PM
dang fast...! \ :D

Paul_Boland
06-27-2014, 07:11 PM
I would like to see Newtek be more vocal with the community about what is going on. Even the old Core forums have gone dead with no activity in them any more and we were suppose to be kept up to date on what was happening at Newtek. I like Lightwave a lot but I see a lot of companies and colleges walking away from it. I remember when DAVE School is all about Lightwave, now it's Maya.

The problem is, Lightwave is within my pocket range (I'm long term unemployed) and if Newtek abandoned it then going over to Maya or 3D Studio which costs thousands just wouldn't be affordable for me and I'd lose my 3D outlet. So I want Lightwave to continue but I will admit, there are times I'm unsure just about what the future of the software is going to be...

erikals
06-27-2014, 07:20 PM
LightWave 12 will show, it might be revealed at Siggraph... maybe-maybe...

if so, the actual release would probably be a bit later on....

lightscape
06-27-2014, 10:53 PM
For all we know they are still working on CORE and just wanted to take it out of the public eye.

In theory, if they did anything remotely like that, they would still need to release it someday to get back the ROI and if it doesn't have half the functionality of other appz or even current lw then who's going to buy it? There's so many options nowadays.

hrgiger
06-28-2014, 02:32 AM
LightWave 12 will show, it might be revealed at Siggraph... maybe-maybe...

if so, the actual release would probably be a bit later on....

Maybe. But not this year.

jasonwestmas
06-28-2014, 09:32 AM
I still don't buy into the whole "we believe it will be faster to modernize Lightwave Classic" argument. I still think a different UI and brand new development platform will have to be made. So no doubt in my mind that new software is still in the works behind the scene. ;) ;)

jeric_synergy
06-28-2014, 10:00 AM
Madness. To users, the UI is the program. To change the UI radically is to switch the program, not evolve it.

The underlying plumbing is not important to the user, except in how it benefits/hinders the development of the program.

Over and over from users who know multiple programs I read about how FAST modeler is, and how organic Layout feels (with IMO the most natural camera in the market). So I assume there's some virtues in the current UI.

My impression is that the plumbing is what's hindering development. I used to hear about the craziest limitations of the Panels toolkit. Looking at the mess that is the Layout Options Panel, I believe them.

A radically new UI would alienate the last few people who still are on NewTek's side: Lightwave enthusiasts.

Oedo 808
06-28-2014, 10:26 AM
Madness. To users, the UI is the program.

It is and they would have made it more familiar anyway, the idea that people complained about the UI and it killed Core in nonsense. I remember a video Matt made about how LightWave's perspective view currently handles rotation and how he wanted that in Core, look what you did Matt, you killed Core.

erikals
06-28-2014, 10:31 AM
I still don't buy into the whole "we believe it will be faster to modernize Lightwave Classic" argument. I still think a different UI and brand new development platform will have to be made. So no doubt in my mind that new software is still in the works behind the scene. ;) ;)

well, the idea behind Hydra is basically changing a huge foundation of the Modeler,

if (!?) that is done, it is basically like changing the engine of a car, so in the end you are left with a Hot Rod...

once done, you can choose to change the remaining parts, if you want to...

but i have no idea just how they want to go about it... maybe Hydra ain't that big of a part of their new strategy after all... or maybe things / directions have changed...

one thing is for sure, a huge change-over has do be made essentially...

http://tinyurl.com/mo4lfyr

jasonwestmas
06-28-2014, 10:34 AM
Madness. To users, the UI is the program. To change the UI radically is to switch the program, not evolve it.

The underlying plumbing is not important to the user, except in how it benefits/hinders the development of the program.

Over and over from users who know multiple programs I read about how FAST modeler is, and how organic Layout feels (with IMO the most natural camera in the market). So I assume there's some virtues in the current UI.

My impression is that the plumbing is what's hindering development. I used to hear about the craziest limitations of the Panels toolkit. Looking at the mess that is the Layout Options Panel, I believe them.

A radically new UI would alienate the last few people who still are on NewTek's side: Lightwave enthusiasts.

Well that's the irony of it all, it's impossible to radically improve a program without radically changing the workflow, the cosmetics and position of the UI changing is the reflection of such workflow improvements. That does not mean at all that the good things about the classic environment can't be preseved, nor am I implying that the direction of core was completely a good one. BUT a learning curve for such redesign is inevitable.

erikals
06-28-2014, 10:38 AM
http://forums.newtek.com/images/misc/quote_icon.pngOedo 808
It is and they would have made it more familiar anyway, the idea that people complained about the UI and it killed Core in nonsense. I remember a video Matt made about how LightWave's perspective view currently handles rotation and how he wanted that in Core, look what you did Matt, you killed Core.

yes, i've been telling him this too... :)

by the way, is it illegal to say these sentences now ?

"you know, it's the essential Core of LightWave..."
"hey, this is LightWave's Core technology"
"...right to the Core!"

?

jasonwestmas
06-28-2014, 10:40 AM
well, the idea behind Hydra is basically changing a huge foundation of the Modeler,

if (!?) that is done, it is basically like changing the engine of a car, so in the end you are left with a Hot Rod...

once done, you can choose to change the remaining parts, if you want to...

but i have no idea just how they want to go about it... maybe Hydra ain't that big of a part of their new strategy after all... or maybe things / directions have changed...

one thing is for sure, a huge change-over has do be made essentially...

http://tinyurl.com/mo4lfyr

I'm pretty sure that a geometry engine is only the end roots of something that grows much larger in the future. To tack on Weaker workflows to this kind of modernization is kind of fruitless.

probiner
06-28-2014, 11:34 AM
Madness. To users, the UI is the program. To change the UI radically is to switch the program, not evolve it.

The underlying plumbing is not important to the user, except in how it benefits/hinders the development of the program.

Over and over from users who know multiple programs I read about how FAST modeler is, and how organic Layout feels (with IMO the most natural camera in the market). So I assume there's some virtues in the current UI.

My impression is that the plumbing is what's hindering development. I used to hear about the craziest limitations of the Panels toolkit. Looking at the mess that is the Layout Options Panel, I believe them.

A radically new UI would alienate the last few people who still are on NewTek's side: Lightwave enthusiasts.

You are very wrong. But feel free to work on a classic LW skin for future developments, but first take a look around outside of LightWave for yourself.

The UI right now has a lot of problems, it's not terrible or unusable, but could use some love to become more manageable. And that goes in line with the needs of LW right now, better management of the application, scenes, contents and render.
There are a lot of pop-up properties windows, when they all could be one window that refreshes when you call another window, or in case you lock that one, then a new one shows up. Right now those properties windows can't be integrated in the rest of the UI, either by docking, or by turning a viewport into such window. Scene Editor is the best thing we have to multi-manage items, but its a Master plugin and will not stay in place like other windows.I could go on with the many problems with the UI right now, but that's not productive at all if I'm not being asked directly, but some things are really hard to manage to get it your way so then you just adapt to whatever is there, like it or not.

That LW being fast argument is debatable, because many things don't scale well and workarounds aren't fast to iterate over.

Only thing NT needs to worry about is when/if they come out with something that is quite different from the current paradigm is to grow it with the beta users and afterwards, provide short and clear video highlights of the mindset of the new approach (both free and commercial), explaining how to get similar old things done and the nice advantages of access, management over old ways.

I say this all the time, but here it goes again: Less rules that stack over and are applied everywhere are much more productive and human friendly (yup, screw artist friendly, we're all humans ;) ) than say every window, tool and environment having its own separate mindset, UI, short-cuts, etc., like we have now. Like said before, unification is not just about doing all under the same roof, but also not having to radically train your brain for different sections of the app, when the same mindset could be applied in common areas.

Anyways, I'm sure it's a very hard task and, unlike other times, I'm not here going up on tables and demanding for it. Just pointing out stuff, not expecting much, but keeping the ideas I think are fit, on the table.

Cheers

RebelHill
06-28-2014, 11:43 AM
Yeah... probiner is right... The UI of a program is merely an abstraction of the underlying functionality. If you create significant enough change to the underlying program, you HAVE to make changes to the UI in order to accomodate the program flow underneath it. That's not to say you cant give it any "style" you like, but that amounts to nothing more than a choice of colours, fonts and icons.

Oedo 808
06-28-2014, 11:45 AM
You are very wrong.

No he isn't, as Myagi well proved during the Hardcore fun.


But feel free to work on a classic LW skin for future developments, but first take a look around outside of LightWave for yourself.

He won't need to, it will be there, and there will be no problem.

lightscape
06-28-2014, 12:15 PM
Madness. To users, the UI is the program. To change the UI radically is to switch the program, not evolve it.

The underlying plumbing is not important to the user, except in how it benefits/hinders the development of the program.

Over and over from users who know multiple programs I read about how FAST modeler is, and how organic Layout feels (with IMO the most natural camera in the market). So I assume there's some virtues in the current UI.

My impression is that the plumbing is what's hindering development. I used to hear about the craziest limitations of the Panels toolkit. Looking at the mess that is the Layout Options Panel, I believe them.

A radically new UI would alienate the last few people who still are on NewTek's side: Lightwave enthusiasts.


Agree with you on some points. This is UI/UX design problem that can be solved by a good designer. Take the good stuff from lightwave and skin them in a new way. But you don't have to stick with the old gui completely.
Try using modo for atleast several hours. You will notice a lightwave user will get quickly familiar with modo with parts from lightwave that were (ahem)copied and presented in a new skin. The tools are extremely similar, info panels with lists taken directly from modeller, etc. The modo gui is a derivation of modeller and layout so it is familiar.

jeric_synergy
06-28-2014, 01:01 PM
But feel free to work on a classic LW skin for future developments, but first take a look around outside of LightWave for yourself.
You said it: outside Lightwave, IOW, NOT LW.

The workflows and UI are "Lightwave". Change them too radically, and the product may be from LW3dG, but it ain't "Lightwave". It's something else.

I'm not saying Lightwave can't (and must for that matter) evolve. But too fast a change you lose the very real "Lightwaviness" that makes it a pleasure to use.

All that work that's already gone into the tools that we are familiar with is lost if the tools change too radically, and we are forced to start improving them, yet again.

jasonwestmas
06-28-2014, 01:04 PM
You said it: outside Lightwave, IOW, NOT LW.

The workflows and UI are "Lightwave". Change them too radically, and the product may be from LW3dG, but it ain't "Lightwave". It's something else.

I'm not saying Lightwave can't (and must for that matter) evolve. But too fast a change you lose the very real "Lightwaviness" that makes it a pleasure to use.

New name will be in order.

jeric_synergy
06-28-2014, 01:29 PM
Yeah... probiner is right... The UI of a program is merely an abstraction of the underlying functionality.
I would say "underlying TASKS".

If Adobe changed the architecture of PShop, I wouldn't especially expect the tools to change. They might improve faster, and some extension of their capabilites might occur, but the TASKS are the same.

probiner
06-28-2014, 01:38 PM
You said it: outside Lightwave, IOW, NOT LW.

The workflows and UI are "Lightwave". Change them too radically, and the product may be from LW3dG, but it ain't "Lightwave". It's something else.

I'm not saying Lightwave can't (and must for that matter) evolve. But too fast a change you lose the very real "Lightwaviness" that makes it a pleasure to use.

All that work that's already gone into the tools that we are familiar with is lost if the tools change too radically, and we are forced to start improving them, yet again.

What no color text tags? pssshh. :p

No, you said it:

Over and over from users who know multiple programs I read about how FAST modeler is, and how organic Layout feels (with IMO the most natural camera in the market)
And I told you to go out and check things for yourself, but then you say it's the most natural camera in the market... so you have used other apps? Confused, but with the impression you don't really know what is out there and you're just throwing notions. Unless you want to go specific on that.

You say:

Architecture is the ONE thing we can be sure they're working on: it's the frickin' roadblock to everything else.
But you want it to still be Lightwave with the same UI and workflow issues? And just boot and not having to learn new things?Please define "Lightwaviness". Seriously.

I don't have a clue why you think things would change very fast. New things come very slowly but steady if the advantages are proven and with enough time for someone to grow with them.
I'm certainly not rooting for something new to come out just for the sake of it and then fail... Would be terrible again for NT and for LightWave.


I would say "underlying TASKS".

If Adobe changed the architecture of PShop, I wouldn't especially expect the tools to change. They might improve faster, and some extension of their capabilites might occur, but the TASKS are the same.
Not a fair comparisson simply because even if some people are not happy with PS for some tasks it's still the standard to deal with static pixel images... LW is not the standard and has a lot more competitors than PS.


No he isn't, as Myagi well proved during the Hardcore fun.
Can we see it? Can you explain the conclusion of the presentation? If not, one can't grasp the meaning of your argument and acknowledge something.

Anyway, not in our hands... Best wishes to LW3DG, it's not an easy place to be right now.

Cheers

hrgiger
06-28-2014, 01:55 PM
The UI should evolve as the architecture beneath it changes. If they are making significant changes underneath then the UI would almost certainly have to change to a degree to accommodate. Do people just think that a unified LightWave (if that's indeed where we're headed as we really don't know that for sure) is going to look exactly the same only with twice the number of tabs along the top? My blood curdles at the thought of such a implementation.

RebelHill
06-28-2014, 02:32 PM
Do people just think that a unified LightWave (if that's indeed where we're headed as we really don't know that for sure) is going to look exactly the same only with twice the number of tabs along the top? My blood curdles at the thought of such a implementation.

Mooo... fassssaaaa!!!

prometheus
06-28-2014, 03:04 PM
The UI should evolve as the architecture beneath it changes. If they are making significant changes underneath then the UI would almost certainly have to change to a degree to accommodate. Do people just think that a unified LightWave (if that's indeed where we're headed as we really don't know that for sure) is going to look exactly the same only with twice the number of tabs along the top? My blood curdles at the thought of such a implementation.

you really showcase a narrow description on "do people" which people?, how many? and do they or do they not? Think it will look the same with twice the number of tabs, sounds like a very narrow minded mind state on what other people might or even might not think it should look like.

I agree with you on the architecture, but that doesnīt mean the UI could in fact stay pretty much the same in general feel, and just use a menu switch to or drop down of UI configs to select model environment or layout environment, could be almost as easy as that and still remain true to much of the old menus.
Itīs all in the hands of the devs, they could take any direction really..the responding reactions from us is another thing though.

jeric_synergy
06-28-2014, 03:05 PM
My camera experiences are with MAYA, Blender, and C4d. IMO all of them felt like they were designed by IT guys, not cinematographers.

erikals
06-28-2014, 03:08 PM
http://forums.newtek.com/images/misc/quote_icon.pnghrgiger
exactly the same only with twice the number of tabs along the top?

well, that's how Maya does it, only difference is that they click a shortcut, so that those Modeling etc tabs are shown in another display :P :]

come to think of it, i could make an AHK script that does that right now.... :°

Oedo 808
06-28-2014, 03:26 PM
Can we see it? Can you explain the conclusion of the presentation? If not, one can't grasp the meaning of your argument and acknowledge something.

Might be around somewhere, but yeah I can explain it, it was a completely different editor program and thus a completely different architecture that was despite this, just like LightWave, and that's all I see most people wanting.

I think the UI argument is time and again blown out of all proportion because the Core lamenters need someone to blame for us not having a unified LightWave with everything we have now and more. Quite frankly given the expectations that some people had for Core there is nothing too outlandish for the 11.7 wishlist, I mean how about unification, with everything we have now, why the **** not.

I don't get this dismisive talk of the UI being an abstraction of the underlying architecture, of course it is, but this is not something trivial to me, a great deal of planning goes into this area for something that's just mishmash of fonts and colours which would suggest it is more than a peripheral concern to others as well. I just recently watched a video about Mocha where they make mention changes to the UI but add that there's no need to worry, it won't be unrecognisable, I wonder why they might have thought that was an issue?

I'm pretty sure in all the suggestions jeric has come out with you would find some that would require a change in the current UI, I wanted changes to the UI in Core and I often see requests from the community that would see a change the current UI, so I'm not sure what it is that you and others are not grasping. I think you are imagining the rigidity of the position that people have regarding changes to the UI.

Is there anything you do like about LightWave that you would not cast away?

I also don't know why people keep saying the UI need change solely because of the architecture, that the UI is an abstraction of it is also what makes the idea false. The UI changes to accommodate how tools are interfaced not how they work underneath. If people think that the UI needs to change because say a history stack were implemented it would need a way to be interacted with conveniently, something like an integrated side panel, and you think people are objecting to that, I'd like to see where, I don't really get the sense that people are talking about the same things. Such a panel for me would be collapsible, like they are in ZBrush's and it would be just like LightWave only not because we don't yet have one, yet.


Anyway, not in our hands... Best wishes to LW3DG, it's not an easy place to be right now.Cheers

Thankfully it isn't our hands, I do have some faith that Matt has a grasp of what matters to me, understands what is appealing and will keep what can be kept and change sympathetically what needs to be changed. Topics like this do make me realize I really should do more though in terms of communicating what I want to see and also what I don't want to see lost, lest the emperor change into his new clothes and find things a bit breezy.

Percy2k03
06-28-2014, 03:52 PM
Preset well can't lw3d group just give a web page so users could just upload models textures materials everything like that. Then ofc we make all the presets and share them with our friends. To me that's that should take a web developer next to no time to set up and implement it. Ofc moderation prob will be needed. So I'll put my feature request as that a preset page on the lightwave3D.com.

jwiede
06-28-2014, 04:57 PM
My camera experiences are with MAYA, Blender, and C4d. IMO all of them felt like they were designed by IT guys, not cinematographers.

(sigh) So IT guys prefer virtual dollys, cranes, and so forth, and cinematographers prefer something else? What version of C4D are you using for reference?

cresshead
06-28-2014, 05:15 PM
siggraph is just 1 month and 12 days away...

what will newtek show this year?

and what of other 3d apps and technology (renderers and plugins)

probiner
06-28-2014, 06:04 PM
I also don't know why people keep saying the UI need change solely because of the architecture

so I'm not sure what it is that you and others are not grasping.
I don't think anyone said it in that way, if you look back you'll see that was a questioning of "Lightwaviness". We do not grasp with was is not defined. Maybe I can ask you or jeric what is the UI for you then and what do you need to keep? Round text buttons or the fact you know your ways around the app and fear to be lost? If the first well, I've started with LW7 and looks very different now from then. If the second, every new feature usually adds new UI for you to learn to navigate.
My UI concerns are more structural, not so much about how much you feel at home or if the style is familiar. That comes later, when you choose to work with something for hours because you think it provides the solutions you need.
Take the things I talked about: A settings/properties window that refreshes to accommodate all settings/properties windows with multi-selection support(application, camera, render settings, lights, objects, nodes, modifiers, etc) becoming much more integrated in the user workspace and requiring less clean-up. A way to save all the input in said property/settings window so you can have your own presets. A better scene content manager than Scene Editor which not integrated in the UI at all. There's no docking or a way to turn viewports into a settings window or node editor or a graph editor. The list can go on and I don't really care to discuss of what I want to keep of the UI when talking about them, when the motivation for the discussion is what's not there.



Is there anything you do like about LightWave that you would not cast away?
Very fair question given the line of discussion. But it would have to comprise what is the LW roadmap, if that choice would be for a new paradigm, or if it's the same paradigm where some parts would be replaced/updated. But even then it's hard because things can't be picked up in a vacuum. For example I like that nodes are universal, but many new things I could see in the node environment and management. Does that mean I want to trash the current nodes? But wouldn't a positive change make them very different? You see it's not an easy thing to talk about... Hence I focus on "what I think is missing" rather than "how it will be done".

Cheers

lightscape
06-28-2014, 10:31 PM
Might be around somewhere, but yeah I can explain it, it was a completely different editor program and thus a completely different architecture that was despite this, just like LightWave, and that's all I see most people wanting.

I think the UI argument is time and again blown out of all proportion because the Core lamenters need someone to blame for us not having a unified LightWave with everything we have now and more. Quite frankly given the expectations that some people had for Core there is nothing too outlandish for the 11.7 wishlist, I mean how about unification, with everything we have now, why the **** not.

I don't get this dismisive talk of the UI being an abstraction of the underlying architecture, of course it is, but this is not something trivial to me, a great deal of planning goes into this area for something that's just mishmash of fonts and colours which would suggest it is more than a peripheral concern to others as well. I just recently watched a video about Mocha where they make mention changes to the UI but add that there's no need to worry, it won't be unrecognisable, I wonder why they might have thought that was an issue?

I'm pretty sure in all the suggestions jeric has come out with you would find some that would require a change in the current UI, I wanted changes to the UI in Core and I often see requests from the community that would see a change the current UI, so I'm not sure what it is that you and others are not grasping. I think you are imagining the rigidity of the position that people have regarding changes to the UI.

Is there anything you do like about LightWave that you would not cast away?

I also don't know why people keep saying the UI need change solely because of the architecture, that the UI is an abstraction of it is also what makes the idea false. The UI changes to accommodate how tools are interfaced not how they work underneath. If people think that the UI needs to change because say a history stack were implemented it would need a way to be interacted with conveniently, something like an integrated side panel, and you think people are objecting to that, I'd like to see where, I don't really get the sense that people are talking about the same things. Such a panel for me would be collapsible, like they are in ZBrush's and it would be just like LightWave only not because we don't yet have one, yet.



Thankfully it isn't our hands, I do have some faith that Matt has a grasp of what matters to me, understands what is appealing and will keep what can be kept and change sympathetically what needs to be changed. Topics like this do make me realize I really should do more though in terms of communicating what I want to see and also what I don't want to see lost, lest the emperor change into his new clothes and find things a bit breezy.

Is there a like button! :thumbsup:
Imagine if 3dmax, maya changed the UI, not just the fonts and colors, lol. The vast majority of 3d users would be in limbo.

Snosrap
06-28-2014, 10:39 PM
siggraph is just 1 month and 12 days away...

what will newtek show this year? Nothing. They are not going to be there. :)

motivalex
06-29-2014, 01:33 PM
Nothing. They are not going to be there. :)

but maybe an announcement or two during that time period?

jasonwestmas
06-29-2014, 03:16 PM
but maybe an announcement or two during that time period?

probably a newsletter or two. Haven't heard any plans of course.

octopus2000
06-29-2014, 04:15 PM
did newtek abandon CORE for good? does CORE support ngons?

Snosrap
06-29-2014, 04:17 PM
but maybe an announcement or two during that time period?

Yeah, that's what I was thinking. Cody has asked for material so he has been working on something although I'm not really all that interested on what others have done with LW - I want to see what Newtek has done with LW.

- - - Updated - - -


did newtek abandon CORE for good? does CORE support ngons?

Yep - although they learned a lot from Core and I'm sure some of those learnings will make it to LW. VPR did.

CaptainMarlowe
06-29-2014, 11:20 PM
For sure, the complete blackout from LW3DG is becoming very annoying. Since there is speculation whatever they do (communicate, or set a blackout), I think they could try and go for a minus-medium solution, at least, with M. Powers hoping in in the forums from time to time and send a message about some directions LW has gone for the next version, or even better, as a foreword in the newsletters.

Dexter2999
06-29-2014, 11:47 PM
Yep - although they learned a lot from Core and I'm sure some of those learnings will make it to LW. VPR did.
And Bullet
And Python Scripting
And I believe improved handles

djlithium
06-30-2014, 01:01 AM
For sure, the complete blackout from LW3DG is becoming very annoying. Since there is speculation whatever they do (communicate, or set a blackout), I think they could try and go for a minus-medium solution, at least, with M. Powers hoping in in the forums from time to time and send a message about some directions LW has gone for the next version, or even better, as a foreword in the newsletters.

It is rather obnoxious isn't it? If you are not going to rally the troops from time to time how do you expect to win the hearts and minds of the masses? Communication is key. Everything feels very black box right now and that disturbs me and others to no end. Why? Because you get silly things like "core" and CS.

But to be fair (trying to be fair), they are busy kats in development and hopefully it's for the right reasons.

- - - Updated - - -


And Bullet
And Python Scripting
And I believe improved handles

None of which really came from CORE so to speak and didn't or doesn't rely on any "core" technology and was not required in order to be implemented.

Dexter2999
06-30-2014, 01:34 AM
No, it doesn't rely on "core technology". But they were all characteristics proposed and present in CORE. When it was scrapped, they were worked into LW 11.

I have no idea why the user base continues to romanticize the memory of CORE. Overdue, over budget, and mostly over rated. It was merely going to be a third wheel on the LW release that was nearly useless. How on earth do you properly utilize something that can use huge poly counts but can't render/animate (outside of bullet sim's)? The other two thirds of LW would have choked on the poly counts they were talking about with CORE.

Did everyone really want a Maya-like navigation and shortcut system with icons?

I think what everyone keeps clinging to was the IDEA of a unified app, new beginning, with expanded speed and poly counts...along with the perks they gave us anyway.

So enamored of the hope the project symbolized rather than the reality of the calamity it became.

I think it was a good bye to bad rubbish, personally. Irks me to no end every time someone brings it up like it was some kind of effin' unicorn. I'd love to see them add "CORE" to the filter just like curse words.

Effin Electric Image, indeed.

Lewis
06-30-2014, 01:45 AM
Did everyone really want a Maya-like navigation and shortcut system with icons?
[/SIZE]

Hmm, well obviously not every one wants Maya navigation or shortcut system BUT why not have it as option? What's wrong with more options. CORE has navigation like LW (or better, i've made my work slightly better but still LWM alike) or Maya or MAX, you can adjust/change it to whatever liking (it's not hard-coded like in LW) and shortcut system is context sensitive (you can have shortcuts inside of tools), also you can have skin/interface like Lw or any other app, you can have ICONS ONLY, TEXT only or BOTH so it really is BEST of all worlds and users decide and yet LW to this very own day (4 years later) still can't do any of that. So although CORE project did many things wrong THIS what you mention it NOT been mistake at all, it was better.

LWavers need to stop thinking that TEXT only on buttons and LW navigation are best in world and fit all the needs. People from other apps would also disagree with that so why not give them option to make navigation as they want and by that "lure" more users to LW by giving them flexibility of navigation and shortcuts or GUI look. Nothing wrong there.

Megalodon2.0
06-30-2014, 01:49 AM
Hmm, well obviously not every one wants Maya navigation or shortcut system BUT why not have it as option? What's wrong with more options. CORE has navigation like LW (or better, i've made my work slightly better but still LWM alike) or Maya or MAX, you can adjust/change it to whatever liking (it's not hard-coded like in LW) and shortcut system is context sensitive (you can have shortcuts inside of tools), also you can have skin/interface like Lw or any other app, you can have ICONS ONLY, TEXT only or BOTH so it really is BEST of all worlds and users decide and yet LW to this very own day (4 years later) still can't do any of that. So although CORE project did many things wrong THIS what you mention it NOT been mistake at all, it was better.

LWavers need to stop thinking that TEXT only on buttons and LW navigation are best in world and fit all the needs. People from other apps would also disagree with that so why not give them option to make navigation as they want and by that "lure" more users to LW by giving them flexibility of navigation and shortcuts or GUI look. Nothing wrong there.

:agree: EXCEPTIONALLY well said! :thumbsup:

octopus2000
06-30-2014, 02:08 AM
what if newtek allows maya, max and houdini models to be opened inside lightwave without the need to change the maps or animations or lighting or cameras. lightwave will become an essential tool for both lightwave users and non lightwave users.

Lewis
06-30-2014, 03:02 AM
what if newtek allows maya, max and houdini models to be opened inside lightwave without the need to change the maps or animations or lighting or cameras. lightwave will become an essential tool for both lightwave users and non lightwave users.

"ALLOWS" :). It's not like you just allow it or not, if is that easy we wouldn't have Alembic or any other "trying to be universal file format" need :).

lightscape
06-30-2014, 03:35 AM
New unified app is easier said than done. Look at Modo. I bet the codebase is very much derived from lightwave and then added some of the same destructive toolset and you have a unified app that's as easy to model like modeller but in a "unified" environment that maya, xsi users seem to like a lot. Not many people seem to mind it doesn't have a modifier stack and working just like lightwave BUT presented in a modern gui.
Newtek should just slowly move modelling tools in layout and slowly increase performance to handle huge datasets.

jwiede
06-30-2014, 04:57 AM
I bet the codebase is very much derived from lightwave and then added some of the same destructive toolset
You'd lose that bet. While there was some code overlap (and may still be), it's contained within individual subsystems and tool code -- the overall (Nexus-based/-generated) infrastructure is not LW-derived nor all that similar other than at a fairly gross level common across most 3D packages.

Nexus/modo is largely COM-based, even on Mac, and if you study the modo SDK, the infrastructure differences are quite apparent, and quite significant. That's also why Viktor (LWCAD) and other plugin devs talk about how producing modo versions of LW plugins essentially requires major rewriting work -- there are fundamental differences in the way modo works versus LW, the way information is handled and passed, and so forth. It isn't just LW redone using COM, either, from the building-blocks on up the data structures, subsystems, and the services they use to interact are all quite different. Again, the easiest way to grasp the difference is to spend some time understanding the modo SDK.

I also doubt you'll find many users of both packages who feel modo "works just like" LW, other than some nav and cmd similarities, and that both use destructive workflows in certain places.

probiner
06-30-2014, 05:55 AM
(...) some of the same destructive toolset and you have a unified app that's as easy to model like modeller but in a "unified" environment that maya, xsi users seem to like a lot. Not many people seem to mind it doesn't have a modifier stack and working just like lightwave BUT presented in a modern gui.
Newtek should just slowly move modelling tools in layout and slowly increase performance to handle huge datasets.

A - Destructive toolset, but you will have to agree that it is more interactive, so less repetition right there. Also the new Mesh Fusion feature is an example of a non-destructive solution, and that could be an approach that comes with newer tools, even though I don't think their structural tools will move in that direction. Alike Modeler they also work with polygon tags/types, materials per polygon, etc, so there's the goods and bads of that, alike LW, but at least without the split there's less problems from that being changed in 2 different places.

B - No modifier stack, but on the other hand there's a tool stack :) Makes more sense, since it was though out to be a modeling application and not an animation application. In other applications there are modeling relations through operators, that allow one to have animatable modeling gimmicks and let them be part of a rig.

C - Modeling tools in Layout... Well, I'm pretty sure it has been said before it was not possible in the current paradigm. Layout always World Space and Modeler's always Local, from what I remember. There would have to be much better support for vertices display, splines and subdivision. Also an Isolation mode and either a group or layering system, being that these last ones are needed anyway. So even all that would be a hard task, I can only imagine...

Anyway, I think no one is now expecting LW12 to be unified; maybe some stuff will be layed out in that direction, maybe not... Honestly it's hard to touch these subjects because we simply don't know what LW will be set to be in the market.

Cheers

erikals
06-30-2014, 08:25 AM
LWavers need to stop thinking that TEXT only on buttons and LW navigation are best in world and fit all the needs. People from other apps would also disagree with that so why not give them option to make navigation as they want and by that "lure" more users to LW by giving them flexibility of navigation and shortcuts or GUI look. Nothing wrong there.

from what i found, a mix of different methods is the fastest, here, a MockUp btw, might try to make it work using AHK...

http://www.erikalstad.com/cgtemp/LW-icons.png

jeric_synergy
06-30-2014, 09:13 AM
(sigh) So IT guys prefer virtual dollys, cranes, and so forth, and cinematographers prefer something else? What version of C4D are you using for reference?
If only. What I see is that IT guys want "viewports" and weird camera targeting. (I left AE out of there because its 3d camera implementation is such an abomination I don't even consider it 3d.)

Most recently, C4DL, but also some previous version that came w/a book...12?

Whatever it may be, I find the LW camera the easiest and most natural to manipulate.

lightscape
06-30-2014, 09:33 AM
You'd lose that bet.
I also doubt you'll find many users of both packages who feel modo "works just like" LW, other than some nav and cmd similarities, and that both use destructive workflows in certain places.

I said derivative.
I work with modo artists who are also lightwave artists. I'm a lightwave artist who also uses modo. If you don't find the similarity of modelling tools, action centers, falloffs, applying weigthmaps, gui panels, little things(when nothing is selected, everything is selected)copied from lw, etc then do you think that 3dmax or maya are similar to modo, lw, too? I find 3dmax and maya vastly different when using them for work.
Btw I'm only talking about modeller. Fx and Animation in modo have veered off to something of its own and some would say its turning into inconsistent workflow.
I don't buy the Nexus marketting. Its like the Core marketting.



A - the new Mesh Fusion feature is an example of a non-destructive solution, and that could be an approach that comes with newer tools

B - No modifier stack, but on the other hand there's a tool stack

C - Modeling tools in Layout... Well, I'm pretty sure it has been said before it was not possible in the current paradigm. Layout always World Space and Modeler's always Local, from what I remember

Anyway, I think no one is now expecting LW12 to be unified; maybe some stuff will be layed out in that direction, maybe not... Honestly it's hard to touch these subjects because we simply don't know what LW will be set to be in the market.

Cheers

A. A perfect example that you can add powerful tools to an old architecture. Why not do the same for layout?
B. They could have added a modifier stack but chose not to because they believed its not the direction they want to go. I'm guessing it was just too hard to implement for a small team that time.
C. Nothing is impossible as shown how mesh fusion was integrated into modo late in the game. World space and local space? item mode, component mode in modo.

I'm not expecting unified app for atleast 5 years where we can ditch modeller. But baby steps for modelling tools in layout are needed to be shown soon. They need to show progress if people are going to buy into it. It doesn't have to be as powerful as softimage, maya right away and get crazy with low level deformers and access to architecture, etc. They can add that later on just like what modo is doing slowly for over a decade.

probiner
06-30-2014, 04:48 PM
A. A perfect example that you can add powerful tools to an old architecture. Why not do the same for layout?
B. They could have added a modifier stack but chose not to because they believed its not the direction they want to go. I'm guessing it was just too hard to implement for a small team that time.
C. Nothing is impossible as shown how mesh fusion was integrated into modo late in the game. World space and local space? item mode, component mode in modo.
A - You mean a feature, that it's supported already in their current system, aka the meshing. Do you have highlights of the ins and out of Mesh Fusion within Modo?
B - Of course, but now they want to do animation and a stack can be very important in that case.
C - Again Mesh Fusion is no example, since that app is alread unified and the proceduralism is done through nodes. Yes, but Modo already has those modes, like Blender, like Maya, like Max, not LW.

Cheers

Oedo 808
06-30-2014, 08:01 PM
I don't think anyone said it in that way, if you look back you'll see that was a questioning of "Lightwaviness".

I think people did say it in that way, but perhaps just an obtuse way of saying a feature needs a UI element. To the question of LightWaviness, putting out round text buttons is a bit reaching as an example, if I put together the UIs from 7, 11.6 and Core and said to pick the odd one out, I think the round buttons wouldn't set themselves quite so far apart. But yes, the appearance, the clean, compact, icon free buttons are a part of Lightwaviness. Now you might say, "Oh but Core had classic UIs and people made their own" well yes it did and yes they did, but my concern is that when I came to LightWave I had the option, as many of us did or still do of choosing any application, but it was LightWave I went for and the appearance was part of that, despite having a well versed Max user ready to call on. Perhaps I might have chosen differently had I known certain limitations, but to me the early impression of LightWave was a plus and something I didn't want to see lost. Are you seriously trying to tell me sentiments like that brought the development of Core grinding to a halt? I don't see what is achieved by slavishly trying to ape everything else from a more successful program, as if that alone is a recipe for success. Want something changed? By all means, just quantify it with an example other than just some vague notion that change is needed.

You are right though, when we have a new feature we often do have a new UI element to utilize, I was to going to say precisely this, I don't think anyone is disputing such. Like TFD for example, you open TFD and it's both a new feature with a UI and it's... LightWavey, and while many floating windows are annoying, I prefer having the TFD window to the integrated navigating I've seen in C4D (although there are elements like the cache list I like, but this isn't C4D UI-style dependant). LightWave can be a little like having your clothes strewn all over the bedroom but other programs can feel like constantly having to dig down to the bottom of a tall wash basket for something. Of course dockable windows could certainly help with that depending on the implementation, but is there really any opposition here? Perhaps people who object will step forward so we can get a handle on exactly what opposition there is. You spoke of not being able to get a grasp on something not clearly described, well I feel the resistance to change has been taken and regurgitated with artistic license because of moping about Core being killed off, if people wanted that LightWave be familiar, then that isn't wholesale obstruction, as if Core died because the community was immoveable on the issue of change, total bollocks as far as I'm concerned. A lot of what I saw people objecting to I didn't like myself, yet I know my position still leaves a great deal of room for change to be made.

And if some have no need for animated modelling tools, why shouldn't they fear a UI where things are neat and tidy but too far buried? Not that unification is optional to me, barring some marvellous new workflow, but people who don't need it are still quite entitled to their opinions, opinions which might influence even more clearly defined workspaces or perhaps the LWG could even envisage a benefit to continuing a studio and modeller app as an aside, who knows. The point is, people are entitled to offer their opinion and it's up to the LWG to pick up on the merits of the arguments. Speaking of that which is hard to grasp, I've heard a lot more about where the current set up falls down than I have seen clear examples of it, perhaps if the most convincing thing people have to offer wasn't little more than "change is gud" then they could be less worried that their concerns may not be taken seriously. Not to mention people who don't experience the downside might be more sympathetic.

As opposed to what LightWave is, I'll tell you what LightWave isn't to me, and that's the constant and unnecessary pecking of values into the numeric fields, if I wanted to see that sort of thing I'd buy a chicken and throw some grain onto my keyboard, not to mention driving the cursor to some gizmo every time you want to make an adjustment, that's what I fear, I see that crap all the time by others and it drives me nuts. To me LightWave shows the promise of a very tactile modeller, it may not sound like much but I certainly feel the difference when I use something like Unity's gizmo and that's just for item placement let alone modelling. The new Transform tool in Modeler already works like that (as in without viewport manipulation), now I don't want to be unfair because it is a multi function tool but it has me concerned, is that what a new unified LightWave transform would be like? Likewise if divisions are added to Chamfer and Rounder is phased out are we going to lose viewport control of working the tool? Voicing concerns about things like that would not be being afraid change just because it's different. Much like Matt voicing his concern at the way the viewport rotation had changed back with Core. Regarding that, doesn't Modo have a similar feel? I'm sure someone mentioned back then that Brad Peebler encouraged new users to stick with it.

I don't care for the numeric panel at all, I know some people have it open constantly and I see people pecking in "10mm, maybe 15mm, let's try 20" what the ****? If there's no need for round numbers and you aren't following measurements, why do that? Makes no sense. Sometimes it is a necessity, but certainly I don't find it overwhelmingly so for myself. Take a look at ZBrush, how many fantastic and varied models, even hard-surface ones do you see with people getting anal over the minute measurements? Like I've said before I try to model in the perspective view and keep the plan views stacked at the side, I don't need things being redesigned with unnecessary UI usage in mind because for one I worry that it will overshadow the direction I would like it to be going which is in an expansion on viewport-space tool manipulation and hopefully mouse/pen gestures, and secondly it simply takes away the way I like to work. If what could essentially be said to be "Hey, this needs to be more like LightWave" how the **** is that a call for an end to unification, the dismissal of having a history stack and the banning of something like dockable windows?

Core's UI didn't just happen, someone thought it was a good idea for the unveiling of the new version of LightWave, and it's no use saying it wasn't finished or that it could be changed because you can equally say that people were offering their opinion of what they wanted to see when it was finished, what's wrong with that?

I didn't see that Core had anywhere near enough in it for people to even think of complaining about unification.


You see it's not an easy thing to talk about...

Well it can be difficult to talk about, look at the all ******* typing you just made me do and it probably doesn't scratch the surface of what I would want to try an impart without trying to cover things sufficently that I don't have to type another wall of text, I've had enough of doing "Boohoo, Core :cry:" responses. I remember Intuition had some good videos on what we could take inspiration from but that's when there was some sort of pretence of them engaging users with Hardcore, that facade faded soon enough and without any such engagement I find my enthusiasm to add much in that regard quite low, much to the LWG's relief I'm sure.


Hence I focus on "what I think is missing" rather than "how it will be done".

I can't agree to that, not least because of how important a first implementation is and how a poor 'could be better' implementation will be left and overlooked time and again over the subsequent versions with the never ending need for new developments taking priority, but I've said enough, for now. Just don't forget to stop and think about what isn't missing, you might just find that there's a reason you are here posting as a LightWave user, wouldn't that be something. If you can't, maybe you should question whether your time might be better spent trying to shape an application you already do have a liking for.


LWavers need to stop thinking that TEXT only on buttons and LW navigation are best in world

No they don't, because it is ;)


and fit all the needs. People from other apps would also disagree with that so why not give them option to make navigation as they want and by that "lure" more users to LW by giving them flexibility of navigation and shortcuts or GUI look. Nothing wrong there.

More seriously, this is very true, as I remember it there was the suggestion that Core have a splash screen like... was it Blender? So people could switch it to their preferred method? Maybe there was the suggestion that it would be better available from a list so they might at least try it out 'as is' first and see if that suited them any better. It's difficult to remember after all this time, I'd rather people stuck to making suggestions and dealing with objections in the present rather than digging out the old Hardcore chat and sentiment just so they can play us a miserable tune on their violin and mourn Core, again.

There will always be people resistant to just about anything when it comes to software, if there weren't I'd expect the universe to implode, if that's a surprise to anyone, more fool them.

lightscape
06-30-2014, 09:55 PM
A - You mean a feature, that it's supported already in their current system, aka the meshing. Do you have highlights of the ins and out of Mesh Fusion within Modo?
B - Of course, but now they want to do animation and a stack can be very important in that case.
C - Again Mesh Fusion is no example, since that app is alread unified and the proceduralism is done through nodes. Yes, but Modo already has those modes, like Blender, like Maya, like Max, not LW.

Cheers

A. A feature they had to expand the modo code to make mesh fusion work. There are many videos showing what mesh fusion can do on the net.
B. Yep they are adding what people would consider "architecture" features late in the game. Its doable, its code. What's important for users is how it will be implemented as a workflow. Just like the new nodes in modo. Just like the new node system in 3dmax.
C. It is an example how a non-destructive modelling paradigm can be fusioned :D with a destructive modelling workflow that Modo has. If that is not an indication of how its possible to put new tech into old tech then what's your example of retooling software? Maya and 3dmax have retooled with new technology from time to time. Its code. So why not retool layout slowly moving modelling into it?

All the above are related to retooling instead of rebuilding from scratch which is much much harder to do. Its just a matter of resources. Does newtek have resources they WANT to allocate to lightwave? Did Lux have it, no they didn't and they sold modo to the Foundry because they are expanding the featureset which a small team couldn't possible do without working 24/7 and impossible man hours.

jasonwestmas
07-01-2014, 07:00 AM
So why not retool layout slowly moving modelling into it?

All the above are related to retooling instead of rebuilding from scratch which is much much harder to do. Its just a matter of resources. Does newtek have resources they WANT to allocate to lightwave? Did Lux have it, no they didn't and they sold modo to the Foundry because they are expanding the featureset which a small team couldn't possible do without working 24/7 and impossible man hours.

Apparently NT doesn't have the resources to bring modeling tools into layout at all. If it's all just code, it's a lot of code to modify even in a modular fashion. We always seem to get the "unforeseen complications" excuse. NT doesn't know how to spend resources to get big things done. But kudos to them for at least trying a few times.

erikals
07-01-2014, 10:29 AM
http://forums.newtek.com/images/misc/quote_icon.pngOedo 808
I remember Intuition had some good videos on what we could take inspiration from but that's when there was some sort of pretence of them engaging users with Hardcore, that facade faded soon enough and without any such engagement I find my enthusiasm to add much in that regard quite low, much to the LWG's relief I'm sure.

i've had a look through those vidz this week, taking notes on what LightWave could learn from them.

but i'm happy to say, several of those features have been added or started... http://erikalstad.com/backup/misc.php_files/smile.gif

there are still some important ones to add though, such as making some Polygon Islands -like features...


http://vimeo.com/13562923

cresshead
07-01-2014, 11:25 AM
Hmm, well obviously not every one wants Maya navigation or shortcut system BUT why not have it as option? What's wrong with more options. CORE has navigation like LW (or better, i've made my work slightly better but still LWM alike) or Maya or MAX, you can adjust/change it to whatever liking (it's not hard-coded like in LW) and shortcut system is context sensitive (you can have shortcuts inside of tools), also you can have skin/interface like Lw or any other app, you can have ICONS ONLY, TEXT only or BOTH so it really is BEST of all worlds and users decide and yet LW to this very own day (4 years later) still can't do any of that. So although CORE project did many things wrong THIS what you mention it NOT been mistake at all, it was better.

LWavers need to stop thinking that TEXT only on buttons and LW navigation are best in world and fit all the needs. People from other apps would also disagree with that so why not give them option to make navigation as they want and by that "lure" more users to LW by giving them flexibility of navigation and shortcuts or GUI look. Nothing wrong there.

quoted for agreement...i use several apps and would like the "option" to choose a viewport navigation of my own choosing..just like i have in modo where i do NOT use modo's crappy nav but use 3ds max nav...and in blender where i don't use blender's default nutcase nav...but 3dsmax nav..and in lightwave i'd like the option to choose...sure KEEP lightwave nav..but add other standard navigation systems like maya and 3ds max...that way people demoing lightwave can jump straight in from maya or max and have some FUN and maybe...just maybe with ease of use could ADD a seat of lightwave...if you want to ADD a level of frustration for artists tryign out your software for the first time then yeh..stick with lightwave only nav...great well done...duh.

erikals
07-01-2014, 12:02 PM
this unification request will never end, will it... ? :°

i think NT has no choice, sooner or later, complete unification has to be done...

until then, new tools are on the way to deal with the M/L problems...

Sanchon
07-01-2014, 04:54 PM
Check out Khalid Al-Muharraqi's OpenGL Ape animation test from LightWave Facebook page : http://instagram.com/p/pyAyy3G8AY . Is this Modo or sneak preview from LW12 ?

Dodgy
07-01-2014, 06:55 PM
Just adding the Mouse buttons/Navigation options to the standard hotkey editor would be a start, then you could at least modify them. I'm sure people would be fairly quick to add their own maya/max etc presets to this forum.

cresshead
07-01-2014, 07:57 PM
Check out Khalid Al-Muharraqi's OpenGL Ape animation test from LightWave Facebook page : http://instagram.com/p/pyAyy3G8AY . Is this Modo or sneak preview from LW12 ?
they also have a motion capture studio and motion builder.

http://muharraqi-studios.com/?page_id=2553#tab-id-4

RebelHill
07-01-2014, 09:10 PM
Check out Khalid Al-Muharraqi's OpenGL Ape animation test from LightWave Facebook page : http://instagram.com/p/pyAyy3G8AY . Is this Modo or sneak preview from LW12 ?

Nope...

Its RHiggit ;)

vbk!!!
09-25-2014, 03:06 AM
Make Lightwave render engine standalone !

allabulle
09-25-2014, 03:21 AM
Make Lightwave render engine standalone !

Please don't. Don't divert resources to yet another task outside LightWave development.

vbk!!!
09-25-2014, 04:24 AM
Please don't. Don't divert resources to yet another task outside LightWave development.

The render engine and the shading is the best part of Lightwave. Make an offer to allow people to integrate it to their existing pipeline could be really great.
You can spend time to implement any features as you want, the thing is there is only two strategies : keep the core base users ( so then add features they will be happy to see, even if other apps can do the same thing faster and better) or try to gain new customers ( allowing them to test the very best of the software).

Chronosculpt and nevromotion are smart soft. Their are pipe-oriented and can be easily used by any studios. To get a Lightwave render engine follow the same path IMO.

Lewis
09-25-2014, 04:38 AM
Make Lightwave render engine standalone !

They already tried something similar with Rendition and it failed so.....

vbk!!!
09-25-2014, 04:52 AM
They already tried something similar with Rendition and it failed so.....

I missed this one !
YOu were able to render on Maya or MAx or C4D or Houdini or Blender with Rendition ?

Lewis
09-25-2014, 04:55 AM
I missed this one !
YOu were able to render on Maya or MAx or C4D or Houdini or Blender with Rendition ?

Even better it was integrated in Photoshop which has more seats sold than all 3D packages sold since.... well forever :D :D.

vbk!!!
09-25-2014, 05:03 AM
but who buys 'toshop ?
Do you think a guy working for print or a photographer or digipainter needs this kind of soft ? So many many wrong targets !
:D

Lewis
09-25-2014, 05:31 AM
Let me ask you counter question.

Even if we disregard how big work/task for already too small LW DEV team it would be to make it work for other apps why do you think that Maya, Max, C4d... users would want LW render engine when they have options to use many more render engines like Vray , Arnold, Corona, Octane.... and many many more :)? What's so special in LW render engine that they can't match or already have in other render engines :)? It's not best in the industry, it' snot fastest, and it misses some key features (micropoly displacements and few more) for today's standards so why would anyone want to buy/use it outside of LW ?

Sure it's great for us and works well in LW but outside of LW it's very different story.

Snosrap
09-25-2014, 06:37 AM
I agree with Lewis. It used to be (back in the day) that you could tell which app was used for rendering - now the rendering tech is so good and the artists that work with them are so versed in using them that it is virtually impossible to tell which renderer was used.

erikals
09-25-2014, 07:59 AM
i Love the LightWave render engine,

but agree, first one would have to fix the low-poly-handling problem LightWave has,
one would also have to improve FiberFX, +add tone mapping
(actually, maybe the low-poly problem is not a problem, as Kray is now being exported to other 3Dapps)

even after that, it would have to compete with all the other options out there.

a standalone LightWave render engine would've made more sense 10 years ago


remember, it will have to compete with >
Vray , Arnold, Corona, Octane, Kray, RenderMan, Blender Cycles, etc etc...

tyrot
09-25-2014, 09:24 AM
a standalone LightWave render engine would've made more sense 10 years ago


remember, it will have to compete with >
Vray , Arnold, Corona, Octane, Kray, RenderMan, Blender Cycles, etc etc...

totally agree .....also latest octane bundle - means -something...

vbk!!!
09-25-2014, 10:16 AM
well
like erikals says it's certainly to late for that ... I didn't remember the first time I suggested that.
But the fact is there is always something missing.
Vray user can complain of the lack of descent procedural texture. Arnold user can complain the fact it's impossible to blend material ...etc ...

well if the engine can't go to the softwares then let the softwares go to the engine and improve all exchange tools especially alembic.

lightscape
09-25-2014, 10:21 AM
What's so special in LW render engine that they can't match or already have in other render engines :)? It's not best in the industry, it' snot fastest, and it misses some key features (micropoly displacements and few more) for today's standards so why would anyone want to buy/use it outside of LW ?


Unlimited render nodes, superior nodal shading, low cost.
Companies have budgets and cost of render nodes is always a consideration. The lw renderer is not too bad in terms of quality either. Not the best but it is very capable in most cases.

erikals
09-25-2014, 10:47 AM
that said, some nice LightWave NPR renders >
(haven't included all here by far...)

http://forums.newtek.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=124494&d=1411663630

lightscape
09-25-2014, 09:33 PM
And this quality


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HjHiC0mt4Ts

Oedo 808
09-26-2014, 04:34 PM
And this quality

Ed

I missed the thread at the top of the WIP section (http://forums.newtek.com/showthread.php?137719-Human-Progress) when I looked as I don't generally think of works as being pinned.

tyrot
11-15-2014, 12:24 PM
ok- so what s happening? any news for LW 12