PDA

View Full Version : Rounder still not fixed?



TrueSongMedia
11-24-2014, 11:58 AM
Hey all.

I'm not trying to bash Lightwave or Newtek here, but why has Rounder STILL not been made more stable? This is a very useful tool, but the random error "An error has occurred that may leave Modeler unstable..." is getting a little old.

I do understand that the tool has limitations. But why not program some "if the user tries to do ____, and I can't do ________, then tell the user: 'I can't do that, user! Try adding some polygons here and try again."

Would this not be preferable to a sudden "HEY! There's an error that might cause the program to crash! Save your work and run! Muahaha!"??

Are you all still using Rounder or have you found a suitable replacement?

jboudreau
11-25-2014, 05:36 AM
Hey all.

I'm not trying to bash Lightwave or Newtek here, but why has Rounder STILL not been made more stable? This is a very useful tool, but the random error "An error has occurred that may leave Modeler unstable..." is getting a little old.

I do understand that the tool has limitations. But why not program some "if the user tries to do ____, and I can't do ________, then tell the user: 'I can't do that, user! Try adding some polygons here and try again."

Would this not be preferable to a sudden "HEY! There's an error that might cause the program to crash! Save your work and run! Muahaha!"??

Are you all still using Rounder or have you found a suitable replacement?

Hi

LWCAD Mass Rounder is the best. It kills the built in rounder tool in modeler

Hope this helps
Jason

Skonk
11-25-2014, 05:39 AM
Hi

LWCAD Mass Rounder is the best. It kills the built in rounder tool in modeler

Hope this helps
Jason

The problem is that LWCad is a commercial tool to do something that there is a built in tool for that just doesn't work well.

That said; as a LWCad owner I would recommend EVERYONE buys LWCad regardless of what they use Lightwave for due to LWCad being so damn good.

colkai
11-25-2014, 07:52 AM
Want to use modeller? Get LWCAD, just consider the outlay part of the cost of upgrading your LW seat. ;-)
...and yes, it is useful everywhere, not just for CAD stuff. :-)

JohnMarchant
11-25-2014, 08:32 AM
Agreed Colkai, its the only real reason i still use LW Modeler and with 2015 i don't see that changing any time soon :(:(:(

hrgiger
11-25-2014, 08:36 AM
As much as I agree that LWCAD is a must have, it probably doesnt sound good to someone that they should buy a plugin to overcome a long standing limitation in LightWave. While i know they are supposedly updating modeler architecture, they really should consider fixing some things that have been complained about as much as Rounder has.

jboudreau
11-25-2014, 08:39 AM
As much as I agree that LWCAD is a must have, it probably doesnt sound good to someone that they should buy a plugin to overcome a long standing limitation in LightWave. While i know they are supposedly updating modeler architecture, they really should consider fixing some things that have been complained about as much as Rounder has.

Oh I agree. I just got so tired of not being able to do simple things in modeler and when the sale came on for LWCAD I couldn't pass it up. It takes away most if not all of the limitations, and adds a ton more features that you just can't do easily in the current modeler. I can't wait for LWCAD 5.0

I agree I think the 2015 version should of gave a bit more love to modeler, not new features as I know they are fixing the architecture but to fix what has been broken for quite some time including rounder and other stuff that users have been complaining about.

Thanks,
Jason

Amurrell
11-27-2014, 04:43 AM
As much as I agree that LWCAD is a must have, it probably doesnt sound good to someone that they should buy a plugin to overcome a long standing limitation in LightWave. While i know they are supposedly updating modeler architecture, they really should consider fixing some things that have been complained about as much as Rounder has.

Heck I would be happy if they combined rounder, edge bevel, chamfer, bevel, and mutishift into one tool, like MODO has it. Parse down the tools set, I say :)

colkai
11-27-2014, 05:13 AM
As much as I agree that LWCAD is a must have, it probably doesnt sound good to someone that they should buy a plugin to overcome a long standing limitation in LightWave. While i know they are supposedly updating modeler architecture, they really should consider fixing some things that have been complained about as much as Rounder has.

I agree 100%, but I'm just be logical here.
You know only too well how long some of us have had problems over Newteks lack of attention and vague promises of "next time". Some have moved on, for others, LWCAD is all that keeps us opening modeller, so I just figured, anyone wanting to get the most out of modeller has to accept that they need LWCAD.

Is it ideal? Nah, not at all, is it even right? Some don't care, others have taken required action for their needs.

gerry_g
11-27-2014, 05:27 AM
or Modo which has the bevelling tool described and dreamed of above (well for the most part) and is a way better add-on for LW users than LW Cad, I have both and on a day to day basis one is far more invaluable than the other

Sylver
11-27-2014, 05:50 AM
Heck I would be happy if they combined rounder, edge bevel, chamfer, bevel, and mutishift into one tool, like MODO has it. Parse down the tools set, I say :)

Ab-so-lutely. I confess to having flirted with Modo (even considered picking it up and leaving LW) because the modeling there is simply a dream. But LW is such a good value and does so many things so quickly, I couldn't make the switch.

Modeler *needs* some love next version, or at least license LWCAD into LW 2016. For the love of God, DO SOMETHING about Modeler, Newtek! Or at least open up Layout with a framework to start migrating modeler tools into Layout somehow and let the 3rd party devs start blazing the trail...

TrueSongMedia
11-27-2014, 12:08 PM
It is pretty sad that even Blender can do what Rounder should be able to do. Newtek, you want us to keep paying you for upgrades, improvements, new features, etc. How about fixing these major bugs that Modeler has had for years?

Modo is looking really nice right about now. I do have a license of 601 that I may need to get back into.

Nicolas Jordan
11-27-2014, 02:17 PM
I also tried out Rounder in the Lightwave 2015 trial hoping that maybe just maybe it had been given some attention but it only took a few seconds to realize it wasn't touched at all.

TrueSongMedia
11-27-2014, 04:55 PM
I posted on the Newtek and Lightwave 3D Facebook pages about this issue. It may seem minor to some people, but for those of us who can't afford several hundred more USD to buy LWCAD, it is a big issue. How long will we have to wait for Newtek to fix this problem? Other 3D programs can do what we need just fine. I know Newtek knows Modeler needs work. Instead of fixing Modeler, they just keep throwing out new releases (i.e. 2015).

Newtek, you need to fix what's broken before bringing more features. Granted, some of those new features are really nice, but if you want to impress us, fix the bugs before the features!

TrueSongMedia
11-28-2014, 07:31 PM
I've created a (mediocre) video that shows Blender 2.72b, Modo 601 sp5, LW 11.6.3, and LW 2015. Blender and Modo round the edge perfectly, where LW 11 and 2015 throw an error.


http://youtu.be/yYXxpjbAUhs

Surrealist.
11-28-2014, 09:22 PM
Well Rounder is not a bevel tool like that. It is Rounder, which is specialized. It might not be perfect. But you at least first should learn how it does work.

Looks like not much has changed since I wrote this:

http://lightwiki.com/wiki/Working_with_Rounder_and_Edge_Bevel

Don't slap me around for pointing this out. But this has been true for a lot of years. People complain about how rounder is broken. More accurately it is poor in design.

The Blender tool used is "Bevel" which I use daily. But it is not the same as LWM Rounder. Maya also works very similar. But Rounder is another animal.

TrueSongMedia
11-28-2014, 11:11 PM
Fair enough. Is there another tool within LW that can do this, since Rounder is not the tool?

Surrealist.
11-28-2014, 11:36 PM
I may not be the right guy to ask at this point as I am very rusty with Modeler.

My first reaction is there is not really one answer. It depends on what you are trying to do. I find that all of the different programs I have used I have had to rethink how I do things based on the strengths of the program. And so I would plan out my sequence of steps accordingly. I find myself modeling with vastly different techniques and approaches depending on what program I am using.

So for instance in Modeler I would probably plan a shape like that in profile first and use LW CAD or some other tool to extrude it along a curve. Or simply make it a solid piece or cut the edges as in my tutorial. It just depends. The best approach is to figure out how it all works and then make a plan.

The example you gave is far to simplistic to even be practical. So I'd have to have you shoot me a scenario first.

And likely there are other guys around here more fresh with Modeler.

JohnMarchant
11-28-2014, 11:49 PM
Well rounder is not actually broken its just very picky how it works as explained to me.

Check this thread out http://www.foundation3d.com/forums/showthread.php?t=18164 especially 34 onwards CC explains it well and you can contact him for his document on how to work properly with Rounder.

I prefer LWCAD Mass Rounder anyway. The problem in LW is the inconsistency of the way tools work, some do it this way, some that way. Anyway enough said on Modeler LWG3D and most of us are aware how much work modeler needs to get it up to scratch.

spherical
11-29-2014, 12:20 AM
Well, to make things apples and apples, having two polys that do not form a solid is a bit of a skew of the test; at least as far as Rounder is concerned. Keep the shape as an entire cube, not having deleted four of the six sides and flipped the polys, and Rounder works as expected on that corner.

If you really want a non-solid two polys rounded corner flipped inward, then delete the four un-rounded square polys and flip the now-rounded remainder.

Surrealist.
11-29-2014, 12:27 AM
It does not have to be solid, more specifically, the ends can not be open as in this image from my wiki tut:

125736

There must be more geometry beyond the edges to be beveled.

spherical
11-29-2014, 12:38 AM
That is what having a solid does; provide geometry past that which is being rounded. In this case, the extrapolation of two polys at 90 is a cube. Provide the cube and it works. Yes, you can provide truncated sides of said cube to provide the "more geometry" but why split hairs? :) The point is, Rounder works when you stay inside the lines; which is what I thought you were meaning by: "learning first how it does work". That is what I'm illustrating.

Oedo 808
11-29-2014, 01:14 AM
While Rounder may not have been made with this implicit functionality, it really should be capable of this. Bevel, I can understand causing confusing with it's naming and action vs other apps, but it's clear with the functionality Rounder provides, this should be well within its remit. If it has a brother that can perform the task, I'd be glad to hear of it.


Well rounder is not actually broken its just very picky how it works as explained to me

Stockholm Syndrome! :D

Surrealist.
11-29-2014, 01:26 AM
That is what having a solid does; provide geometry past that which is being rounded. In this case, the extrapolation of two polys at 90 is a cube. Provide the cube and it works. Yes, you can provide truncated sides of said cube to provide the "more geometry" but why split hairs? :) The point is, Rounder works when you stay inside the lines; which is what I thought you were meaning by: "learning first how it does work". That is what I'm illustrating.

Yeah sure, I was not saying to don't get it. I am just about being very specific when it comes to talking about modeling operations and requirements. Because if you say something that implies there must be a solid, it makes all the difference in how you plan a modeling operation. So in effect not having to have the mesh solid opens up a lot more possibilities which makes rounder more versatile and usable in more situations if it is understood more precisely what the requirements are.

This should not be taken as splitting hairs when we are talking about something almost purely technical. It does matter how it is described in my opinion.

For sure, if I was new to rounder and I was reading this, I'd appreciate the difference. And when I test things myself I like to get very very specific. That is just how I think.

Surrealist.
11-29-2014, 01:37 AM
While Rounder may not have been made with this implicit functionality, it really should be capable of this. Bevel, I can understand causing confusing with it's naming and action vs other apps, but it's clear with the functionality Rounder provides, this should be well within its remit. If it has a brother that can perform the task, I'd be glad to hear of it.


Yeah me too. But I think Rounder also has a lot of things that it can do that other tools don't. So to me it is more specific. It gives you a lot more options on the corners than other bevel tools do and actually can make very nice clean rounded cuts on things that would be very difficult to impossible with other tools in other apps - i have used anyway. But I don't use Modo, Max ore Cinama 4D. This is the give and take I see of working in Modeler. A lot of tools are like this.

Sure, rounder should be able to do this simple operation. I don't know why it can't. But in its defense it does some very cool things when used the way it was designed. Looking back at that little tut I did so many years ago, I have to admit, it is the little things like this that I do miss from LightWave Modeler. There are a lot of gems like this, you just don't find anywhere else. Maybe Modo. Curious now.

Does the Modo tool also have the corner handing the same way as well?

jboudreau
11-29-2014, 10:38 AM
[QUOTE=TrueSongMedia;1411186]I've created a (mediocre) video that shows Blender 2.72b, Modo 601 sp5, LW 11.6.3, and LW 2015. Blender and Modo round the edge perfectly, where LW 11 and 2015 throw an error.

Hi

I just posted a work-around to this problem you are having.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lu_Krzk2dyk

I agree modeler rounder does need some work along with other tools, but it is capable of doing what you are trying to do in your video it's just going to take a few more extra steps to do so.

Hope this helps
Jason

jeric_synergy
11-29-2014, 11:16 AM
The fact that Rounder works as designed, which is a way that satisfies practically nobody, indicates that to me there was a lack of guidance at the time of its creation. IOW, it smacks of something a programmer thought would be a good idea, not a modeler.

I LOL'd at the "Stockholm Syndrome" comment. Ha!

Surrealist.
11-29-2014, 11:19 AM
Yeah that's cool. Thing for me is that it is such an abstract example. Not yours, but the original posed problem.

For me modeling is a process of a carefully planned out sequence of steps that gets me to my end goal, compromised by the fact that many times I have to shift gears, take a different tack, for any reason at any point along the way which finds me in a situation of either starting over again or coming up with alternate ways to do the same thing so I don't have to redo work. Sometimes starting over is faster. It depends.

And it is for this reason that I always like to know exactly how something works. This way I have all of the options all of the time.

So this original example I did not read as how to exactly take an L shape and round the corner, but rather, what to do if you are sitting there with an "L shape" which could be an already long rail extruded shape along a curve. Or any number of scenarios. Some of which may or may not include the ability to either start with a sold shape or the inability or practicality of being able to make one out of the shape you have, where you are at that point.

Modeling is about planning and also about being able to remain creative.

A lot of times you find yourself in a situation where you want to pull out a tool that "should" do something at this stage of the modeling process and it won't and you don't know why. Or trying to start out with a tool you think will do something or should do it, and then you don't know why it won't exactly.

And I think it is from these scenarios that people make a lot of the claims about something is "broken" because it comes with a preconceived idea of where you want it to fit into the scenario.

jeric_synergy
11-29-2014, 11:22 AM
Or, they just rename it "Round Embedded Edges" -- wallaugh, FIXED! ;)

Surrealist.
11-29-2014, 11:34 AM
The fact that Rounder works as designed, which is a way that satisfies practically nobody, indicates that to me there was a lack of guidance at the time of its creation. IOW, it smacks of something a programmer thought would be a good idea, not a modeler.

interesting perspective. I find it as is a highly useful tool. I can think now in retrospect, having done a ton of poy-based hard surface models for a game engine over the last 3 years where I could have put this tool to liberal use. It is far more advanced than any of the Bevel tools I have used. And it is not really even an edge bevel tool.

I think a lot of thought went into this tool from a modeler's perspective. Perhaps more from a particular older school of thought. But also maybe the fact that it can not do the open edges is a symptom of the fact that it also does calculations on the corners that a bevel tool does not do. Or does not do well enough with as much control and options.

But then again the Edge Bevel tool breaks for the same reason. And in both cases smacks to me of more or less old school of thought where you model with solid shapes all the time. So planning was not put into the tool to work with open flat polygons and then you would have to trick the tool to thinking it is solid. Which is another workaround.

- - - Updated - - -


Or, they just rename it "Round Embedded Edges" -- wallaugh, FIXED! ;)

There you go. :thumbsup:

jeric_synergy
11-29-2014, 11:44 AM
Like a virtual particle, a hacky kludgey fix would be for Rounder to CREATE a virtual edge, invisible to the user, do its work, and delete the edge immediately upon exit. Just as the user is forced to do.

I don't know how the other tools in other apps compare to Rounder's functionality, but I "imagine" that they use a different algorithm to complete their task, and not the abomination I suggest above.

+: "poy-based"????

Surrealist.
11-29-2014, 01:44 PM
By poly-based I mean polygons that will never be subpatched. Of course subpatched modeling is also poly-based I suppose. So that is a bad choice.

jeric_synergy
11-29-2014, 02:57 PM
By poly-based I mean polygons that will never be subpatched. Of course subpatched modeling is also poly-based I suppose. So that is a bad choice.
LOL, I thought "poy" was an acronym or some new app, like "moi", not a typo. d'oh!! & "dhurrrrr".

spherical
11-29-2014, 04:01 PM
For sure, if I was new to rounder and I was reading this, I'd appreciate the difference. And when I test things myself I like to get very very specific. That is just how I think.

Yeah, sure. Well, from my perspective, I'm pretty picky, too, but I rarely work on open geometry; expecting tools to understand something that cannot exist. (Not that all of this isn't fake. :D ) With few exceptions, it all ends up having to be closed, for one reason or another. So, while I take your refinement as such, it isn't something everyone would naturally gravitate to so, good that you took the opportunity to correct me. Just tried creating tris on the two open sides in order to give Rounder something to hang on to and it does indeed work that way; with the shape not being a closed volume -- only the two corners being modified are bounded -- the hypotenuse is open. Thanks for the lesson. I learned something new today.

Surrealist.
11-29-2014, 05:07 PM
Well that's cool. I do understand you thinking in solids. I think a lot of us think that way, or in my case pretty much how I used to look at all modeling unless I was explicitly using a plane for that purpose. It has something that for me has changed over the years.

A lot of it also has to do with the application. In Blender for example I find myself thinking in terms of edges. Just because the way Blender's tools work, it seemed I could get more control by starting with laying out edges in a lot of cases rather than even polygons. And then working to fill things in poly by poly.

Surrealist.
11-29-2014, 05:11 PM
LOL, I thought "poy" was an acronym or some new app, like "moi", not a typo. d'oh!! & "dhurrrrr".

lol... yeah, and no one tells you these things unless you are an "insider" or know the secret handshake... lol

But alas, no love there. I had no secret information to part, I was only talking about polygons... he he he .

But if you PM me I'll teach you the secret hand shake so you can pretend you are an insider. :D

jeric_synergy
11-29-2014, 06:34 PM
BTW, everybody, BeeVee: this is the kinda thing I mean when I say "better explanations" or "alternate explanations" in regards to documentation (although Ben may well have revamped the Rounder dox).

If the documentation were user-enhanced/LW3dG-moderated, we could add a link to the Wiki explanation AND this thread so future LW customers would benefit from our pain. I mean "wisdom".

hazmat777
11-29-2014, 07:00 PM
lol... yeah, and no one tells you these things unless you are an "insider" or know the secret handshake... lol

But alas, no love there. I had no secret information to part, I was only talking about polygons... he he he .

But if you PM me I'll teach you the secret hand shake so you can pretend you are an insider. :D

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddM7kJ9xQfA :D

Snosrap
11-29-2014, 07:00 PM
Rounder was acquired from Richard Brak back in the day. Like most acquired technology, NT lets lets it die on the vine so to speak.

Verlon
11-29-2014, 07:22 PM
Agreeing with other folks, LWCAD is amaze-balls with a side of must-have. Still, rounder should work better. This is not like some exotic function that is only used in a few special cases. It is something I think everyone needs from time to time. For a product that is supposed to do it all out of the box, the basics should be well covered.

My experience with rounder isn't awful, but I have bounced off that error too.

LWCAD is the one product that is so mandatory I think it should be integrated into the base product. I know folks are opposed to just bolting on plugins for upgrades, but if it is something that everyone needs, everyone should have it.

Snosrap
11-29-2014, 07:40 PM
LWCAD is the one product that is so mandatory I think it should be integrated into the base product. I know folks are opposed to just bolting on plugins for upgrades, but if it is something that everyone needs, everyone should have it. I was introduced to it when it was included with LW8 (I think) upgrade and was blown away. It's not just for archvis. If Viktor offered a free 30day trial I think he'd gain a lot of new users. :)

erikals
11-29-2014, 08:35 PM
guess some saw this one?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tY3jolkANKg

Surrealist.
11-30-2014, 08:59 AM
Yeah that is interesting. Some of that has to do with the geometry other parts definitely bad calculations.

erikals
11-30-2014, 09:45 AM
also discussed here >
http://forums.newtek.com/showthread.php?144491-Lightwave-idea-Rounder-Update

zapper1998
11-30-2014, 05:24 PM
I don't know I have really no issues with Rounder, I use it all the time..

erikals
11-30-2014, 05:35 PM
are you serious now, or joking?

it almost sounds like that was serious... ?

jeric_synergy
11-30-2014, 07:13 PM
Within the rules, Rounder works perfectly well. But if you don't like the rules, you don't like Rounder.

Snosrap
11-30-2014, 07:21 PM
Within the rules, Rounder works perfectly well. But if you don't like the rules, you don't like Rounder.

Exactly! But why the rules? Tools should work as the user expects. (to a certain degree. :))

jeric_synergy
11-30-2014, 07:27 PM
Exactly! But why the rules? Tools should work as the user expects. (to a certain degree. :))
I don't disagree.

Snosrap
11-30-2014, 07:34 PM
I don't disagree. I figured as much. :) I simply stated it in hopes that someone from NT would pop in and see the remark. :)

probiner
12-03-2014, 05:26 AM
I wonder where Modeler would be without Viktor. For sure while it's the realistic answer, telling someone that it needs to put another 330$ to solve fundamental modeling problems of their >1000$ software, is not great.

Modo does seam great, the only times I tried it I only really missed the "Connect" tool which gets refracted into 3 tools or so for the same operation. But when it comes to beveling etc, yeah... Also think the power of options in Modo makes it bit clicky and slows one down. Maybe it could learn from what I've seen LWCAD doing, which seems to offer many options but get you less lost in them.

Cheers

kadri
12-12-2014, 02:28 PM
This might be in some way an answer to the problems. Interesting read.
https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=352188748287427&id=100004889147964
Some things aren't so easy as it looks from the outside.

erikals
12-12-2014, 02:50 PM
thanks, interesting read indeed...

proves that Rounder tool can't be fixed, and that Rounder needs a rewrite...

though i don't care how they do it, i just want to see it fixed, like most of you guys...

gerry_g
12-12-2014, 03:01 PM
he makes a good point, looks like rip it up and start again is the only option, particularly in light of the fact that it is so byzantianly written that it would never integrate well if at all into a revamped modeller, stuck with what you got

jeric_synergy
12-12-2014, 04:01 PM
The code was written in a way that was not suitable for future changes,
from FB

IOW, bad management.

Until programmers actually do their jobs like engineers, with standards, we'll all get to suffer these situations.

Oedo 808
12-12-2014, 04:09 PM
thanks, interesting read indeed...

proves that Rounder tool can't be fixed, and that Rounder needs a rewrite...

though i don't care how they do it, i just want to see it fixed, like most of you guys...

Despite my recent exasperation, I can understand if a tool like Rounder can't be made to work reasonably, like not rounding between edges, because Modeler doesn't have proper edges. My annoyance was that Modeler has shown it was still capable of plenty and issues like this are not reason to say there's nothing we can do at all for such a long period of time.


from FB

IOW, bad management.

Until programmers actually do their jobs like engineers, with standards, we'll all get to suffer these situations.

Yeah, I'm not sure what he's on about, thou shalt not write non-exstensible crap code with crap naming conventions hasn't got much to do with polish.

Surrealist.
12-12-2014, 06:18 PM
Yeah by the way I fully stand corrected. While there are some basic problems you can avoid with Rounder if you understand certain rules, for the rest of it, as Erikals very well demonstrated, it is basically FUBAR.

And I cross checked this also with Blender and Maya. Both handled the same mesh he had without the same issues - I have to say I was surprised!

And David Ikeda is so on point it is ridiculous.

The more I read what he says, and see the things he is demoing and his entire approach to software... wow. That he is not on the LW team is a huge blow in my opinion. Very verry big mistake.

Hire him back and make him the manager of the team and follow his lead. That is what I would do if I were LW3DG management.

jwiede
12-12-2014, 07:18 PM
from FB

IOW, bad management.

The issues David describes are common indications of poor technical leadership (which isn't necessarily the same as "management" in an organizational sense). The code sounds unreadable / unmaintainable as described. However, I disagree with David's assertion that such situations occur solely as a result of "too much polish" (in the sense of excessive growth), I believe it is instead a failure to consider "maintainability" as a fundamental requirement during growth (a second-order effect).

The two concerns are largely orthogonal to each other, though observing maintainability requirements does limit overall rate of growth (more scientifically, it asymptotically limits feasible growth rate curve). Large-scale OSS projects have repeatedly demonstrated that scalability and maintainability are (at the least) strongly-coupled attributes in terms of efficient code base growth, supporting with both positive (focusing on maintainability yielded better end results) and negative (failing to focus on maintainability yielded poorer end results) outcomes.

NOTE: While I agree about the need for proper engineering, creating software "standards" is a VERY complex issue. If you want to discuss further, PM me, lets not hijack this topic.

Surrealist.
12-12-2014, 07:52 PM
I would not consider it hijacking as it is very much to the point. But I think beyond that it is more of an argument in terms which becomes more semantics than anything as I see what you are saying as the same as what David is saying. Using the word "Polish" he openly admits causes confusion. If you read what he is saying, he is talking about something far more complex and involved than just "finishing something off" which can be associated with "polish".

And the point here is Rounder, not like so many other tools but also like so many features in LW, must simply be extremely difficult or impossible to change. It is the only explanation for how things have gone on so long without being rectified. We all know the list.

And sure, this is the argument for a rewrite of LW, which I think we can all agree was the right path - in theory. How long that would take and how long it would take to even get a working application is the thing we all seem to disagree with.

djwaterman
12-12-2014, 11:13 PM
Yeah, Rounder works perfectly well if used the way it was designed to work, but it is not the way people expect that sort of operation to work these days, people now want it to perform a type of magic solve around all edges in one go. So the only option would be a completely new tool, the equivalent tool in LWCad is supposed to work really well, so that sort of shows its possible.

jeric_synergy
12-13-2014, 12:24 AM
Since LWCAD does (apparently) do what everybody EXPECTS Rounder to do, but doesn't, and other apps execute this operation in a user-pleasing manner, surely it's not so much a question of LWM's capability but that the original Rounder author used a craptastic algorithm.

The code may be a dead loss, but, they could always start from scratch.

JohnMarchant
12-13-2014, 12:26 AM
Mass rounder in LWCAD is my preferred method. Yes rounder does work but in a counter intuitive way for most. It needs revisiting as do a few tools that work but work differently from what we would expect.

Surrealist.
12-13-2014, 12:34 AM
Yeah not only that but with proven comparison it is actually broken even when it "works".

Best to test it apples to apples.

Attached is a model I made that resembles as close as I could to Erikals example.

Test it in LW and see it fall apart whereas it works as you'd expect in Blender and Maya, the ones I checked. But you can test it in anything you have around.

jwiede
12-13-2014, 06:57 AM
The code may be a dead loss, but, they could always start from scratch.

Agreed, that never made much sense to me: If the code was _that bad_, why not replace it? It's not so "big" a tool that reimplementation would be unrealistic within a product cycle, and the issue has been around during the scheduling phases of multiple product cycles now.

djwaterman
12-13-2014, 07:50 AM
What is the tool or operation in Blender for rounding edges, is it an Addon? I can't find it. Also do I have to be in Edit mode and select the edges I want rounded?

jburford
12-13-2014, 08:50 AM
What is the tool or operation in Blender for rounding edges, is it an Addon? I can't find it. Also do I have to be in Edit mode and select the edges I want rounded?

Maybe check this out


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


There are others though showing more ways.

What is real neat though is around 1:40 - 2:00

Cheers

jeric_synergy
12-13-2014, 10:36 AM
Agreed, that never made much sense to me: If the code was _that bad_, why not replace it? It's not so "big" a tool that reimplementation would be unrealistic within a product cycle, and the issue has been around during the scheduling phases of multiple product cycles now.
It is a puzzlement. ---A grating, aggravating, annoying f***ing puzzlement.

Snosrap
12-13-2014, 12:53 PM
Agreed, that never made much sense to me: If the code was _that bad_, why not replace it? It's not so "big" a tool that reimplementation would be unrealistic within a product cycle, and the issue has been around during the scheduling phases of multiple product cycles now. It seems like maybe NT's new product features are designed to move over to a new platform eventually and maybe it's not worth the effort to build a new Rounder tool that they couldn't use in the next iteration of LW. Maybe Layout is designed in a way that pieces and parts can be bolted in place and therefore unbolted and moved to a new platform whereas Modeler is hardcoded so to speak and that's why we are seeing all the new features and upgrades mostly in Layout and not Modeler.

jeric_synergy
12-13-2014, 12:58 PM
That makes sense: Modeler has always seemed more hard-coded/inflexible than Layout. :'(

Surrealist.
12-13-2014, 04:04 PM
What is the tool or operation in Blender for rounding edges, is it an Addon? I can't find it. Also do I have to be in Edit mode and select the edges I want rounded?

For Edit Mode and select all the edges you wan to Bevel. Then Clt E to bring up a menu and choose Bevel. Controls will show up on the Left panel (T for tool Pannel if it is not there) all the way at the bottom. For future reference you will find the shortcut on the menu which is ctl B for Bevel.

In Object Mode you can use the Bevel Modifier. Modifier Pannel on the properties page (right side) and choose "Add Modifer" then control it with the settings. For this object you would not need to limit it. But for others you might want to use a vertex group to limit where the Bevel occurs.

Oedo 808
12-13-2014, 04:17 PM
It is a puzzlement. ---A grating, aggravating, annoying f***ing puzzlement.

Maybe not such a puzzlement, I mean, maybe they didn't actually employ anyone to make any tools, or maybe whoever they employed managed to last as long as they did without actually making any tools.

Surrealist.
12-13-2014, 05:31 PM
It is a puzzlement. ---A grating, aggravating, annoying f***ing puzzlement.

This to me speaks to the liability of not talking to us straight. Not until David Ikeda opened up about Rounder on another site completely unrelated to LightWave and now they he is not on the team, have I had any kind of insight as to why something like this would not be fixed.

I don't buy into the idea the the LightWave community is just a bunch of people wining and complaining, uneasy to please, critical crowd that is best not associating with intimately about software development. Yet that is the kind of brush off you get from the devs, as well as other LW users.

However, when there is a release and bugs show up, suddenly the LW community is valuable, able to actually intelligently find and log bugs, and the devs are right on it, and grateful. As they should be.

There is quite a disparity here.

I say in reality there are a lot of real intelligent people here. And if they were treated this way, talked to straight with no BS as to what the actual issues are, and the problems the devs face in detail, it would be appreciated and understood.

I just don't get how the silent treatment is beneficial to anyone.