PDA

View Full Version : Joe Alter liked my idea Crowdfunding Shave for Lightwave



Julez4001
09-21-2016, 04:08 PM
Joe Alter just liked my idea Crowdfunding Shave for Lightwave on Facebook!

What do we have to to make this happen and bring Joe back into the Lightwave Fold.
We definitely need an alternative to Fiber FX wacky and shaky setup.

Any ideas?

http://www.joealter.com/

Reco
09-21-2016, 04:27 PM
I have paid a few bucks to this site
https://www.indiegogo.com/#/picks_for_you

Reco

pnelson
09-21-2016, 05:37 PM
I would ask Joe how much the community would have to raise for the project.. Do a kickstarter or IndeGoGo.. Just keep in mind those sites take a percentage so you need to factor that into the target goal amount!

erikals
09-21-2016, 06:28 PM
with subscription i'll never own it, so it's certainly a no-go for me.

others might think differently. maybe set up a forum poll and see if there is interest.

Verlon
09-21-2016, 07:02 PM
ditto on the subscription idea. I like Shave back in the day, and loved the support Joe provided his product, I try really hard not to rent.

Beyond this, I have given money to both Kickstarter and indegogo.

jasonwestmas
09-21-2016, 08:01 PM
I don't mind subscription options at all for high quality specialty tools. Having shave in lightwave again would be awesome! If this doesn't work out, try the Ornatrix people too. They seem forth coming.

hrgiger
09-21-2016, 10:18 PM
Well given the quality of Shave, I think $225 for a yearly rental is incredibly reasonable. I would support that.

rustythe1
09-22-2016, 12:48 AM
with subscription i'll never own it, so it's certainly a no-go for me.

others might think differently. maybe set up a forum poll and see if there is interest.

yep, that was my thought too, and the other thing is in the next lightwave there is a new fiber fx using geometry that could be a lot better (but will we ever know?)

MichaelT
09-22-2016, 01:05 AM
Personally I prefer owning the software. I do subscribe to some... but only because I have to, and I rather not have to. Besides.. I do much more than art.. coding, music etc.. So I am not always doing 3D (out of time) and having a subscription sitting on the shelf is quite wasteful.

zapper1998
09-22-2016, 02:34 AM
I would donate to the cause

yes sir

erikals
09-22-2016, 04:44 AM
there are several things that puts me on the side line here.

- subscription > that's a no-go.
- legal disputes 1 > Alter in a legal twist with Disney
- legal disputes 2 > Alter in a legal twist with Yeti Fur
  (who's next?... maybe that's unfair, but it puts up a question mark)
- year's ago, Alter got tired of developing for LW and left it, will it happen again?
- year's ago, Alter got tired of developing for C4D and left it, leaving C4D users in the dust.
- how does Shave work with feathers?
- how does Shave compare to say, Blender?

i'm being harsh here, but it's important to reflect on this.

ianr
09-22-2016, 05:05 AM
I like Joe, seemed that Brad & Co chewed him ,back in the day.

HIS WAS THE ONLY SCRUBBABLE TIMELINE THAT WORKED in LW
AT ONE POINT. SHAVE was FUNKY

E good research, But which way are the Legals, is he at them,
or are they at him?

Anyway in my book, Joe's a fair dude ask him for a X year
comittment in return for deep dev collaboration with LW3DG.

Solve's one programming problem for Mr. Powers to get Joe
to overhaul completely Fiber F/X's once & for all!

p.s. Wavers like to own pluggies.

P.P.S. lots of cyber beers 4 Julez :beerchug::beerchug::beerchug:



there are several things that puts me on the side line here.

- subscription > that's a no-go.
- legal disputes 1 > Alter in a legal twist with Disney
- legal disputes 2 > Alter in a legal twist with Yeti Fur
  (who's next?... maybe that's unfair, but it puts up a question mark)
- year's ago, Alter got tired of developing for LW and left it, will it happen again?
- year's ago, Alter got tired of developing for C4D and left it, leaving C4D users in the dust.
- how does Shave work with feathers?
- how does Shave compare to say, Blender?

i'm being harsh here, but it's important to reflect on this.

pnelson
09-22-2016, 06:34 AM
It's true. Development isn't cheap and people have to feed their kids.. :)

wyattharris
09-22-2016, 08:22 AM
Good grief, just checked the 9.0 video.
Makes me pine for what we used to have. (sigh)

erikals
09-22-2016, 09:08 AM
well, certainly FiberFX is the worst Fur tool in the industry.

so anything else is VERY welcome.

so many times i wonder why the LightWave Beta team was sleeping.
or was it LWG?

the "improvements" to FiberFX through the years is a part-tragedy.

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

That Said...! i support the new direction the LWG is choosing 100%
improving the very source of the old Modeler / Layout code isn't done in a day.

jeric_synergy
09-22-2016, 09:18 AM
FiberFX works jussssssst well enough to keep tantalizing us.

It's like we're being gaslit by software: "I swear!!! It worked yesterday!!!!"

ianr
09-22-2016, 09:24 AM
Well Erikals,

'But which way are the Legals, is he at them,
or are they at him?'

Could you confirm, I did ask?

ANYWAY i vote 4 Shave's ReTURN,
Still got Ma Alter Dongle somewhere!

jeric_synergy
09-22-2016, 10:29 AM
I got that dongle somewhere too. Pity I never capitalized on it. :cry:

erikals
09-22-2016, 11:20 AM
Ianr ...is he at them

yep, he at them >
quick google >

Disney - http://patentexaminer.org/2011/10/disney-sued-for-infringing-virtual-hair-raising-patent
Yeti - http://www.cgchannel.com/2012/05/yeti-fur-plugin-will-not-be-sold-in-the-us

hrgiger
09-22-2016, 12:48 PM
Joe explained his position on the legal disputes over at the Foundry boards some time ago. I can't find the link maybe someone else can. But I'm certainly not bothered by them.

As far as how long would it work for LW or that he used to support LW and now he currently doesn't. How is that not true for others? Worley seems to have left us hanging in the wind with Sasquatch so how is only have the option of FiberFX working out for us? I would say not good. I don't know if the changes in LW next will be worth it or not, I hope they are but given the issues with FiberFX since they were introduced years ago, I'm not entirely convinced it will be significantly improved. Obviously, moving to render time geometry is a step in the right direction but for myself, Fiberfx look and quality has always been questionable at best.

erikals
09-22-2016, 01:01 PM
How is that not true for others?
sure it is. and for those others i have the same question.

hence not referring to only 1 happening regarding Alter.

i welcome the plugin, but it's not for me. especially as it's subscription based.

robertoortiz
09-22-2016, 01:22 PM
For all it is worth I could help promote this. Lets just say that promoting Lw is easier for me in the CGS forum.

Julez4001
09-22-2016, 01:30 PM
Well the Facebook page is buzzing
David Alexander Ary AgŁero had suggested earlier but when I say he liked it..I mean Joe click on like on my statement for crowdfunding lw shave.
OK I am off to messaging him to see what his response will be.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/lightwiki/

Rob, lets see what he says first ...

Julez4001
09-22-2016, 02:21 PM
JOE ALTER:
Hi Julian, ~ It (historically) costs us approx $100k to port to new platforms, however shave10 is a lot more portable, so we figure $75k should cover expenses. It'd probably be best if someone like Newtek does the crowd fund for it, maybe Phillip Nelson would be interested.
I'd love to support lightwave again, I just don't want to lose money (and valuable time) in the process, and I'd like to know Newtek is going to be in our corner and helpful. We still have a ton of features we haven't shown for shave10 yet, it's going to be a game changer (we hope)


Ok Robert run with it.

jeric_synergy
09-22-2016, 02:23 PM
It's good to have a number!

jasonwestmas
09-22-2016, 06:15 PM
Great to hear the numbers, thanks for casting out a line for us Julez.

hrgiger
09-22-2016, 06:24 PM
75k isn't an easy number to reach in a smaller community like LightWave. And probably would need legitimized by NT or LW3DG to gain any traction.

Roque
09-22-2016, 07:42 PM
75k isn't an easy number to reach in a smaller community like LightWave. And probably would need legitimized by NT or LW3DG to gain any traction.

Maybe this can be happens if NT and Users work together :)
Sorry my ignorance, but what happened with Worley? Sasquatch was great in the past...

Julez4001
09-22-2016, 08:50 PM
Well now Philip Nelson has liked Joe's response so hopefully some dialogue has started, I will follow up.

jeric_synergy
09-23-2016, 12:16 AM
Are there 75,000 LW users? 7,500 willing to cough up ten smackers?

BTW, I think it would cost them $75K just to port it, and then they'd STILL need to charge us the contributors to make a profit.

samurai_x
09-23-2016, 12:42 AM
Are there 75,000 LW users? 7,500 willing to cough up ten smackers?

BTW, I think it would cost them $75K just to port it, and then they'd STILL need to charge us the contributors to make a profit.

Doubt it. Even legit vray users are less than 20000 globally revealed by chaosgroup in a podcast afaik.
Pretty sure vray users outnumber most 3d software users.
Some "users" are multiple license holders though like companies/studios.

MichaelT
09-23-2016, 01:19 AM
Yeah the post release profit is a concern. Would not want to see this as a one off port. Because then I'd want to own a permanent license. A subscription under that circumstance would be a no go for me personally. Also, that figure sounds like two full time developers are needed.

Julez4001
09-23-2016, 01:34 AM
Not saying he or Newtek would use Kickstarter per se, but there would a tier contributer system. No $5 tier but your contribution would get you the software in your hands. I am basically looking the existing cost structure he has now for the tier system unless he is going to be throwing T-shirts, posters or coffee mugs..... lol.

It would take 112 people to pay $675.00 for the 1 workstation node and 6 render batches "level" to get to $75,000
It would take 334 people to pay $225.00 for the software node only "level" to get to $75,000
It would take 750 people to pay $100.00 to get to $75,000 but what kind of software access would you get? 6 months????
Would he offer a year with a Shave-lite version (remember Sas lite).

Borrowing Jeric mention, if we all added $10.00 to the next LW NEXT upgrade, would there be 7500 of us to pay for it or what about $20, now we are at 3750 of us.
I am sure Newtek could do their famous 495.00 special but now it would be $535.00 and we only need 1875 (paying $40.00) of us. I think the latter would be easier and Newtek would then have an additional hair renderer and they can stop pulling their hair (pun intended) on eveloping Fiber FX and eventually phase it out.

Joe could then make more money by selling additional money to those who need additional batch render nodes.

We all would be saved from Fiber FX shady and shakey usage.

1875 or more of us as a starter, don't make Joe waste his time making a "Sas lite" and
We could get this

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CW1OH2wU4AA24Dq.jpg


much more sooner than we could ever hope.

The only other question would be if Joe had his money today, how long would it take him to port it over.

Julez4001
09-23-2016, 01:54 AM
Yeah the post release profit is a concern. Would not want to see this as a one off port. Because then I'd want to own a permanent license. A subscription under that circumstance would be a no go for me personally. Also, that figure sounds like two full time developers are needed.

This is a personal inquiry, how much would you pay for a permanent license. I can understand why "smaller" developers (not looking at you Adobe\Autodesk) are going rental as a need to stay afloat and have a reason to upgrade software dev dollars. How big is the Lightwave hair development community?

erikals
09-23-2016, 02:50 AM
for a permanent license, probably $500 or more

i don't see that happening though.

MichaelT
09-23-2016, 03:22 AM
This is a personal inquiry, how much would you pay for a permanent license. I can understand why "smaller" developers (not looking at you Adobe\Autodesk) are going rental as a need to stay afloat and have a reason to upgrade software dev dollars. How big is the Lightwave hair development community?

Depends on the plugin of course. But around ~$500 probably. If I think I need a plugin, I could probably go quite the stretch to get it. In this particular case however, I can code it myself. Please note... I am not trying to belittle his work with hair, but in this particular instance.. I actually can code it myself. I know this because I have coded hair before. There is even an open framework for it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFWr44ZIEZc

And the source code:

http://physxinfo.com/news/12726/nvidia-hairworks-1-2-source-code-is-now-available-on-github/

I mention this, only to put things into a perspective. I'd prefer having a tool from someone who knows his stuff of course :) I am just pointing out that there is actually another way here.

Julez4001
09-23-2016, 03:37 AM
In this particular case however, I can code it myself. Please note... I am not trying to belittle his work with hair, but in this particular instance.. I actually can code it myself. I know this because I have coded hair before.


For a community that is suffering a strong, easy to use and "please don't crash on me" hair solution, you can't just come in here and say I can code it myself and then dance right out the room.
Seriously.

erikals
09-23-2016, 03:50 AM
i'm also wondering why specifically people want the plugin...

because FiberFX is too slow to work with?
because of FiberFX crashes?
because of the FiberFX render?

i've been testing FiberFX for a few days and finding it quite alright once i understand how to go about it.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XaLpj3dJ_Os&feature=youtu.be


i'm sure Joe's alternative is much more fun to use though.

MichaelT
09-23-2016, 04:31 AM
For a community that is suffering a strong, easy to use and "please don't crash on me" hair solution, you can't just come in here and say I can code it myself and then dance right out the room.
Seriously.

I'm sorry... But so far I haven't had a real need for it in LW myself. The only reason I mentioned it, is because I am working on a game myself. And that requires hair in game. So sooner or later I would have to fix it. I am not there yet though. I have merely tried it out, as well as realtime cloth ripping. But again, it is in game stuff.

MichaelT
09-23-2016, 04:41 AM
i'm also wondering why specifically people want the plugin...

because FiberFX is too slow to work with?
because of FiberFX crashes?
because of the FiberFX render?

i've been testing FiberFX for a few days and finding it quite alright once i understand how to go about it.


...


i'm sure Joe's alternative is much more fun to use though.

I haven't used FiberFX myself, but it doesn't strike me as reacting to forces? (like gravity, pulls etc..) Please correct me if I am wrong.

erikals
09-23-2016, 04:46 AM
for "true" forces you'd need Bullet or such >


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nVT37X5qY5Q

MichaelT
09-23-2016, 05:16 AM
Yeah I just watched a german tutorial about it. It could be a bit easier to deal with. But I'm sure that is where shave comes in :)

Julez4001
09-23-2016, 05:35 AM
i'm also wondering why specifically people want the plugin...

because of FiberFX crashes?

i'm sure Joe's alternative is much more fun to use though.

Renders are difficult to pull off as well, Sasquatch didn't take too much to get a proper look but its the crashes

jwiede
09-23-2016, 06:08 AM
i'm also wondering why specifically people want the plugin...

because FiberFX is too slow to work with?
because of FiberFX crashes?
because of the FiberFX render?

It's all three, as you yourself have observed, and many others have commented previously.

Were it new tech, that might be acceptable. After this many releases, attempts at improvement, and this much developer effort invested into the technology, you have to start seriously considering sunk costs-vs-RoI. There's just little rational reason to believe investing more time and money will make it a stable, usable feature, given the investments to date haven't already.

erikals
09-23-2016, 06:56 AM
i only know of only 2 professionals that do LightWave character work in Hollywood. (must be more, but can't be many of them)

Greenlaw and Jen, and they both are able to use it in production without too much fuzz. (though yes, it's annoying once in a while)

even though i've ranted about FiberFX, once you understand how, it's fairly straight forward.

i do get the feeling that the ones that complain about FiberFX the most is the ones that have tested it the least.

as there are so few LightWave CA users i'll assume there are not many who would pay a large sum for JA Fur.
hope to be wrong.

anyway, some more FiberFX notes...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ES8K-LvmNy0

rustythe1
09-23-2016, 07:42 AM
I would expect a lot of people that might be interested would hold off for new fiber fx https://blog.lightwave3d.com/2015/11/fiberfx/ at this time so it might be the wrong time to try something like this (and the fact if you started to develop it for old LW, you would then have to switch to new, if he developed for new, again a lot of people would be put off by not knowing when new would arrive so again no funding)

jasonwestmas
09-23-2016, 07:47 AM
I would expect a lot of people that might be interested would hold off for new fiber fx https://blog.lightwave3d.com/2015/11/fiberfx/ at this time so it might be the wrong time to try something like this (and the fact if you started to develop it for old LW, you would then have to switch to new, if he developed for new, again a lot of people would be put off by not knowing when new would arrive so again no funding)

Fortunately and unfortunately (depending on your perspective) the reputation and confidence of FiberFX has been ruined.

hrgiger
09-23-2016, 07:50 AM
for "true" forces you'd need Bullet or such >


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nVT37X5qY5Q

Yeah, that looks awful. No offense to the artist, its FiberFX's fault.

erikals
09-23-2016, 07:55 AM
Giger, seriously, or kidding?

the reference is of course a dynamics test, obviously FiberFX shading/render was not tweaked in that scene.

erikals
09-23-2016, 07:58 AM
Fortunately and unfortunately (depending on your perspective) the reputation and confidence of FiberFX has been ruined.
i remember you were one of the few that tested it a lot.


I would expect a lot of people that might be interested would hold off for new fiber fx https://blog.lightwave3d.com/2015/11/fiberfx/
yes, it'll be interesting to see how it will render,
> RayTracing only
> GI only

the FiberFX GI in LW2017 is fast, very fast. However, it's way too early to tell how it will work in production.

MichaelT
09-23-2016, 08:13 AM
I am more interested in how the SDK changes for the new version. If there are any breaking things in the new version (which does seem likely)

Verlon
09-23-2016, 08:28 AM
Well, with Sasquatch I can always fire up a lightwave where it worked. If Joe abandons LW on a subscription model, where does that leave me?

hrgiger
09-23-2016, 08:47 AM
Giger, seriously, or kidding?

the reference is of course a dynamics test, obviously FiberFX shading/render was not tweaked in that scene.

Seriously. I'm not even talking about the hair shading here, just the dynamics. The animation and all is nice but the hair movement looks terrible.

erikals
09-23-2016, 08:57 AM
its FiberFX's fault.

ok, just wondering.
the Bullet dynamics is exaggerated. many artists do that, to visualize it more.

surely that's no final, it's way overboard, and can be tweaked easily.

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

Note!..
Bullet is not all that great for long hair, kinda rubbery, use Syflex for that (or ClothFX)

a FiberFX Syflex example >
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f8j1ECepjWE

rustythe1
09-23-2016, 09:51 AM
I am more interested in how the SDK changes for the new version. If there are any breaking things in the new version (which does seem likely)

I would assume it will be a complete new SDK, remember it will have PBR, if you look at the FibreFX blog post and pause the video when he brings the settings up you can see its a complete new surface system, and like they have said in blogs, although we can probably keep the geometry from old projects, they will need to be completely re surfaced, also one could assume the changes in fibrefx are because it had to be changed to the geometry for the new engine as the new PBR will not use a lot of the pixel filters as they will not be able to interact with the new renderer

ary3d
09-23-2016, 10:51 AM
I Use FFX several times, some times are buggy, but when you find the issues and follow a workflow you can do great stuff, this is a test I made some time ago, it took me 2 hours to make it


http://forums.newtek.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=134547&d=1474648438


as for the business plan for the crowdfunding campaing there are alot of posibilities:

one can help with 1 dollar and if the campaign makes his goal you can have as a reward a 10% off on the cost of the plugin and so on.
let say that the plugin has a final value of 300 dollars as an early bid and then goes up to 500 when the campaign is over
you can have differents modes on the licencing, like, rent to own, rent with unlimited upgrades, own current version, indy version ( one render node) studio version ( unlimited nodes) etc etc...

134547

jasonwestmas
09-23-2016, 10:58 AM
i remember you were one of the few that tested it a lot.



Dynamics aside, I actually didn't have a problem with the system much itself. What I can't excuse is how we were forced to use that horrible hair shader. Can't stand it especially in the way that the specular highlights always look blurry like an airbrush painting. I'll do any necessary blurring in post when I feel it is necessary but without destroying the details. Personally I think FFX can work out for me for some things if their new PBR hair shader (if it exists) shines through.

It became even more obvious how bad the FFX shading was when I tried the Vray hair MTL with Shave.

rustythe1
09-23-2016, 11:20 AM
134548
well it looks like that (a year ago) and now uses real geometry so affected correctly by all light

MichaelT
09-23-2016, 11:20 AM
I would assume it will be a complete new SDK, remember it will have PBR, if you look at the FibreFX blog post and pause the video when he brings the settings up you can see its a complete new surface system, and like they have said in blogs, although we can probably keep the geometry from old projects, they will need to be completely re surfaced, also one could assume the changes in fibrefx are because it had to be changed to the geometry for the new engine as the new PBR will not use a lot of the pixel filters as they will not be able to interact with the new renderer

If I have to resurface (or make entirely new materials) is perfectly fine with me. In fact I hope this is the case. I've said before they should get rid of the old suit. In any case, I hope they don't procrastinate too long with the new release. I would like to get my feet wet with it, now that I have a bit more time available.

mav3rick
09-23-2016, 11:29 AM
even if i am happy to contribute this idea.. on the other hand i feel sad as i dont rmmbr what feature in LW was complete or up to date with modern apps... i honestly think they are wasting developing energy on stuff that in the end is far from competitive or again we have half finished feature that will probable get obsolete. for example: why do we need new render engine (even worse CPU render engine) when today everyone moves on GPU or at least CPU / GPU hybrids? all that development time they could put in finally proper UNDO system , modeling integration into layout and speed improvements that will handle huge poly data, stacked deformations or even history.

jasonwestmas
09-23-2016, 11:52 AM
134548
well it looks like that (a year ago) and now uses real geometry so affected correctly by all light

K I haven't had a chance to look at the shading in 2015 yet. Curious.

MichaelT
09-23-2016, 12:34 PM
even if i am happy to contribute this idea.. on the other hand i feel sad as i dont rmmbr what feature in LW was complete or up to date with modern apps... i honestly think they are wasting developing energy on stuff that in the end is far from competitive or again we have half finished feature that will probable get obsolete. for example: why do we need new render engine (even worse CPU render engine) when today everyone moves on GPU or at least CPU / GPU hybrids? all that development time they could put in finally proper UNDO system , modeling integration into layout and speed improvements that will handle huge poly data, stacked deformations or even history.

Why do you treat GPU as some kind of magic bullet? Because I can assure you it isn't.

jwiede
09-23-2016, 03:47 PM
134548
well it looks like that (a year ago) and now uses real geometry so affected correctly by all light

Those look like pre-PBR-hair-shader settings, though, not all "make sense" given a PBR shading model. IIRC, Lino even mentioned/posted there was some kind of "legacy shading" thing going on in the video.

jwiede
09-23-2016, 04:02 PM
Why do you treat GPU as some kind of magic bullet? Because I can assure you it isn't.

The question still has merit. Does it really make sense in the long-term for LW to try to compete in the render engine field, when there's so many other areas of LW in need of major dev efforts, and so many excellent third-party render engine options out there (many with dev teams as large or larger than the entire LW dev team)?

bobakabob
09-23-2016, 04:13 PM
The question still has merit. Does it really make sense in the long-term for LW to try to compete in the render engine field, when there's so many other areas of LW in need of major dev efforts, and so many excellent third-party render engine options out there (many with dev teams as large or larger than the entire LW dev team)?

The answer is yes... the present LW renderer is still fast, dependable and capable of beautiful results. Surfacing in LW is so intuitive. As someone who uses Mental Ray and Renderman in education, I rate LW's rendering tech highly. Looking forward to seeing the new PBR developments...

hrgiger
09-23-2016, 04:17 PM
The question still has merit. Does it really make sense in the long-term for LW to try to compete in the render engine field, when there's so many other areas of LW in need of major dev efforts, and so many excellent third-party render engine options out there (many with dev teams as large or larger than the entire LW dev team)?

Well as to the original question, Greg Leuenberger mentioned on TF boards, VRay has a ton more resources than even the Foundry for developing the renderer and it still doesn't support all features for GPU rendering so I imagine its maybe a bit unrealistic to think that LW3DG would have been or could come out with a GPU or even CPU/GPU hybrid renderer for the next release.

Concerning whether it makes sense for LW3DG to put a lot of work into the render engine in general, yes I would say it is. The out of the box renderer, before factoring in 3rd party options, is one of the few areas that LW remains competitive even more so with the unlimited render nodes. And given that LW3DG is 'supposedly' modernizing LightWave, it would make absolutely no sense to let the renderer languish, for a few reasons. For one, most everyone is going or has gone PBR. But also, its not a just a matter of trying to compete, but its also a matter of program communication as now things like volumetrics and hair as has been shown are integrated into the new render engine so there's less relying on tricks for lighting scenes.

MichaelT
09-23-2016, 05:48 PM
There is also the minor point of driver and hardware compatibility. I just very recently experienced what it is like ending up using a card that isn't supported for GPU rendering. With CPU, that will never be an issue. (It is in fact still not fully supported, because nvidia ran into a snag making their SDK. Its nearing half a year now, and that will happen again) Aside from the fact that the LW renderer today is really fast. And the new coming version is even faster.

jwiede
09-23-2016, 07:31 PM
Well as to the original question, Greg Leuenberger mentioned on TF boards, VRay has a ton more resources than even the Foundry for developing the renderer and it still doesn't support all features for GPU rendering so I imagine its maybe a bit unrealistic to think that LW3DG would have been or could come out with a GPU or even CPU/GPU hybrid renderer for the next release.

Agreed, I suspect that was never in the cards w.r.t. LW.


Concerning whether it makes sense for LW3DG to put a lot of work into the render engine in general, yes I would say it is.

That's not quite the question, though. There are options besides "LW makes their own" and "LW does nothing / continues using what they have now". In particular, there's the possibility of them licensing a popular third-party renderer that meets their requirements. LW3DG would still probably need to do some work to fully expose all the rendering seams extant in LW, but it would be much less work than creating a new render engine. After, LW3DG would not only have a new SOTA (licensed) render engine, but in doing so would also probably have better enabled LW for other third-party renderers.

Snosrap
09-23-2016, 08:47 PM
The new geometry engine is what LW needs to do all the things we want LW to do - model in Layout, etc., etc., etc.. If a new hair system and new rendering comes along with that in the first go around - I'm all for it. The team is made up of individuals with special talents, so having somebody like Mark Granger build a new renderer and not work on an undo system makes perfect sense. :)

hypersuperduper
09-24-2016, 01:52 AM
Very true. A company must work with the competence and passions that it has on hand. You can't just switch focus without some major hiring and firing or at least forcing people to tackle problems for which they are ill-suited. If lightwave abandoned rendering development for a third party it is hard to say what it would do to morale. That sort of stuff can kill a small company.

Julez4001
09-24-2016, 02:31 AM
What I hate though is that Newtek could work on something that a third party has already figured out thus leaving another under performing feature in the wind.

.

hrgiger
09-24-2016, 02:38 AM
That's not quite the question, though. There are options besides "LW makes their own" and "LW does nothing / continues using what they have now". In particular, there's the possibility of them licensing a popular third-party renderer that meets their requirements. LW3DG would still probably need to do some work to fully expose all the rendering seams extant in LW, but it would be much less work than creating a new render engine. After, LW3DG would not only have a new SOTA (licensed) render engine, but in doing so would also probably have better enabled LW for other third-party renderers.

Well personally, I don't feel comfortable with the idea of LightWave (or any app for that matter) on relying on a third party renderer for continued support. That renderer could go out of business, change ownership hands, decide to drop support for LightWave...And again, it goes back to the idea that LightWave is supposed to be an out of box solution despite the fact that most use third party tools anyway.

kadri
09-24-2016, 04:48 AM
Guys we are quite off topic.
I will just say that you can argue over many things about Lightwave but since the beginning the render part was always unique and i think it should stay so.

tyrot
09-24-2016, 04:58 AM
oh boy .. developing a render engine ???? why ! WHY!!!!!

erikals
09-24-2016, 05:12 AM
Guys we are quite off topic

a NT thread?... off topic?...

it's impossible :/

http://www.reactiongifs.us/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/nooooooo_luke_skywalker.gif

kadri
09-24-2016, 05:16 AM
a nt thread?... Off topic?...

It's impossible :/



doh! :)

Julez4001
09-24-2016, 05:57 AM
Okay is the consensus is that we should wait and what LW next is and if hair shader truly better than last version and less prone to crashes.

jeric_synergy
09-24-2016, 10:18 AM
Well....... ;)

While the crashing certainly brings productivity to a standstill, my recollection is the UI is not exactly an asset either.

Fine. Really. What >>I<< want is enough SDK access to controls to throw the existing UI away and substitute a better UI. Shouting into the black void of the forum in hope that the devs might change something seems pointless, so my wish is that they simply make it possible for us change it ourselves.

I'd love to see what ernpchan or Greenlaw would come up with, given the possibility.

Or even give us the ability to TWEAK the existing UI: maybe there's just some particular aspect of it that blows that someone wants to change. Make THAT possible, and we could stop reading never-ending posts about other software.

rustythe1
09-24-2016, 10:32 AM
maybe try talking to lino directly, If I am not mistaken he is sort of the UI consultant? and he seems to be the one playing around with fibre most. doubtful you are going to see those changes in the near releases,

MichaelT
09-24-2016, 11:15 AM
I very much doubt there will be any kind of change at this stage, especially given how they already are behind schedule.

jwiede
09-24-2016, 11:16 AM
maybe try talking to lino directly, If I am not mistaken he is sort of the UI consultant?

I believe Matt is LW3DG's UI guy, not Lino, but contacting either should get your issue redirected to the appropriate person.

As MichaelT noted, though, window for adding significant further changes to LW.Next is likely long-closed.

erikals
09-24-2016, 11:29 AM
Matt is the Ui Guy
Lino is the Content Guy

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

Julez4001
09-28-2016, 12:38 AM
So again, I am thinking from this thread, we can garner that lets see what the next release of Lightwave comes with in terms of Fiber FX (which is suppose to be geo base than shader\volumetric) before Joe would be considered for a kickstarter or such campaign.

mav3rick
09-28-2016, 01:43 AM
hah i can tell you already.. from previous experience.. nothin groundbreaking will happen.. ffx will just get that new render fixes and thats all... but it will remain one big bag of mess