PDA

View Full Version : Lw 2017



gamedesign1
01-03-2017, 10:00 AM
Please be awesome! I can't afford money or learning curve to move to something else haha

hrgiger
01-03-2017, 11:59 AM
Did you put in a feature request for it to be awesome?

gamedesign1
01-03-2017, 12:36 PM
Did you put in a feature request for it to be awesome?

Of course ;)

gamedesign1
01-03-2017, 12:38 PM
They said they were working on it, but awesome is tricky to code.
Apparently next month there will be a blog showing the UI for the awesome.

CaptainMarlowe
01-03-2017, 12:39 PM
I do hope they add the most expected "make an awesome render" magic button, THAT would be a gigantic step ahead of the competition.

gamedesign1
01-03-2017, 12:55 PM
I do hope they add the most expected "make an awesome render" magic button, THAT would be a gigantic step ahead of the competition.

I think they are adding that Yeah.
The new animation tools look good too, they are adding "Animate Character So it looks Scared and Runs Off", which looks interesting.

hrgiger
01-03-2017, 02:09 PM
They said they were working on it, but awesome is tricky to code.
Apparently next month there will be a blog showing the UI for the awesome.

Where did you hear that. From everything we've seen and know, the UI isn't likely to change drastically in the next version.

jwiede
01-03-2017, 06:29 PM
Where did you hear that. From everything we've seen and know, the UI isn't likely to change drastically in the next version.

Maybe they're doing the UI for the awesome separately? :devil:

CaptainMarlowe
01-04-2017, 05:30 AM
I think they are adding that Yeah.
The new animation tools look good too, they are adding "Animate Character So it looks Scared and Runs Off", which looks interesting.

Hey, I could take advantage of this feature !

gamedesign1
01-04-2017, 07:38 AM
Where did you hear that. From everything we've seen and know, the UI isn't likely to change drastically in the next version.

I heard from my friend's brother's cousin's uncle's mum

- - - Updated - - -


Maybe they're doing the UI for the awesome separately? :devil:

I think you're right. It's like a bolt on awesome

ianr
01-04-2017, 09:30 AM
I think they are adding that Yeah.
The new animation tools look good too, they are adding "Animate Character So it looks Scared and Runs Off", which looks interesting.

au contraire, don't u mean:

The new animation tools look good too, they are adding "Animate CUSTOMER So it looks Scared and Runs Off", which looks interesting.:lol:

Surrealist.
01-04-2017, 10:14 AM
Just send them the quote. That is usually enough. :D No programing required. ;)

sadkkf
01-04-2017, 02:11 PM
I found a leaked screencap of the new UI....

135474

Revanto
01-04-2017, 06:47 PM
I just hope that they fix all the broken tools and functions since LW 5.0...

Oh, wait, they don't do that sort of thing. They just add new shiny toys that distract you from the broken stuff.

Something like photoshop actions in modeller whould have been cool, too...

Sigh...

Revanto :p

gamedesign1
01-05-2017, 05:05 AM
I found a leaked screencap of the new UI....

135474

Haha

jasonwestmas
01-05-2017, 07:13 AM
I just hope that they fix all the broken tools and functions since LW 5.0...

Oh, wait, they don't do that sort of thing. They just add new shiny toys that distract you from the broken stuff.

Something like photoshop actions in modeller whould have been cool, too...

Sigh...

Revanto :p

Lightwave wasn't designed to fix things easily, which is why they are rebuilding the core of the software now. I am neither defending or accusing for how long things have taken. ;)

jwiede
01-05-2017, 01:04 PM
I am neither defending or accusing for how long things have taken. ;)

I'd hope not, that's my role here! Stay in yer own lane! :devil:

Surrealist.
01-05-2017, 02:01 PM
lol, I think the subject has gone loopy and back. We can't really have another thread can we? At lest not and keep a straight face. :D

Norka
01-05-2017, 02:49 PM
So many possible outcomes when LightWave Next/2017 comes out... Probably a hell of a lot riding on this release. I am not like a Resident Evil Guy, per se, but depending on where this all goes, it could be something like:

LightWave: The Final Chapter (or LightWave: Extinction, I guess) - The final LW version.

LightWave: Afterlife - The LW version that gives itself somewhat of a new lease on life, so that it is is able to hold on to enough folks to eke out an existence, for at least another handful of years.

LightWave: Retribution - The version that is so revolutionary, so totally bad-***, it completely smokes all others, and makes huge gains in market share.

LightWave: Apocalypse - The version that comes out, and we all get to enjoy it, so very, very much, for one day, before The Apocalypse happens.

Medi8or
01-05-2017, 04:53 PM
The new animation tools look good too, they are adding "Animate Character So it looks Scared and Runs Off", which looks interesting.
Unfortunately all the beta testers characters ran off, and development is delayed until the new feature "Find characters" is added.

jwiede
01-06-2017, 03:27 PM
The version that is so revolutionary, so totally bad-***, it completely smokes all others, and makes huge gains in market share.

How many real-world cases can you think of where this happened with an established, declining software product? :devil:

Norka
01-06-2017, 04:16 PM
That was all tongue in cheek. Tomfoolery. Sorry.

gerry_g
01-06-2017, 05:09 PM
Houdini ?

jwiede
01-06-2017, 05:15 PM
That was all tongue in cheek. Tomfoolery. Sorry.

Not needed, taken as such. I apologize for forgetting to add :devil: on the end of my reply (now fixed).

jwiede
01-06-2017, 05:25 PM
Houdini ?

Houdini's market growth rate has slowed at times, but I can't recall ever seeing any indication of actual decline. Have you?

gerry_g
01-07-2017, 03:59 AM
To be more precise, around thirty years ago it was a piece of proprietary software running on proprietary hardware though much used and highly valued it would most likely be dead by now if it hadn't totally reinvented itself, I think that was the kind of argument I was trying to make and what matches the original posters argument, LW needs to reinvent itself, just matching every one else feature for feature will impress no one.

hrgiger
01-07-2017, 04:08 AM
yup agree gerry_g.

jasonwestmas
01-07-2017, 08:18 AM
. . . LW needs to reinvent itself, just matching every one else feature for feature will impress no one.

Exactly the points I've tried to make elsewhere. :)

People I've known would rather overpay or pay more than to change software too.

erikals
01-07-2017, 10:33 AM
LightWave is a Great 3Dapp with Great lacks.

i especially like the Modeler / Layout split, except for when i don't.

KurtF
01-07-2017, 12:12 PM
Core. There - I've said it.

erikals
01-07-2017, 01:04 PM
http://i.imgur.com/hGbtWcx.gif

jasonwestmas
01-07-2017, 06:51 PM
http://i.imgur.com/hGbtWcx.gif

Precisely.

Revanto
01-07-2017, 11:56 PM
Lightwave wasn't designed to fix things easily, which is why they are rebuilding the core of the software now. I am neither defending or accusing for how long things have taken. ;)

I have a love/hate relationship with Lightwave. I'm still planning on getting the upgrade to the next version, though, despite all my gripes :p

Rev.

stiff paper
01-08-2017, 10:29 AM
...just matching every one else feature for feature will impress no one.
It'd impress the hell out of me.

Especially if they do that and make it so the workflow isn't an utter bag of d*cks.

Workflow being the aforementioned utter bag of d*cks is modo's problem (er... other than viewport speed). All the tools are present, but dear oh dear no.

hrgiger
01-08-2017, 11:23 AM
Whats wrong with Modos workflow?

stiff paper
01-08-2017, 12:18 PM
Whats wrong with Modos workflow?
Modeling and rendering are fine. I honestly think everything else (with maybe a couple exceptions) is varying degrees of clumsy / awkward / terrible.

It's okay if we don't agree on this. I know people do like modo. (Also, let's not hijack the thread. If we're going to, I'll just take it back and say modo's workflow is fine. It isn't something I have a burning need to complain about. I just had high hopes for modo back in... was it 2003? I've found it disappointing to watch. I honestly thought the original LW guys would have done better.)

Schwyhart
01-08-2017, 07:39 PM
I had MODO 701 and 801 and I really enjoyed the modeling. Everything else wasn't as smooth for me.
I'm really looking forward to LW Next.

hrgiger
01-08-2017, 08:01 PM
Modeling and rendering are fine. I honestly think everything else (with maybe a couple exceptions) is varying degrees of clumsy / awkward / terrible.

It's okay if we don't agree on this. I know people do like modo. (Also, let's not hijack the thread. If we're going to, I'll just take it back and say modo's workflow is fine. It isn't something I have a burning need to complain about. I just had high hopes for modo back in... was it 2003? I've found it disappointing to watch. I honestly thought the original LW guys would have done better.)

No wasn't intending to agree or disagree, just curious.

For myself personally, its taken me a while to get back to using it. I had Modo 401, went straight to 601 and walked away after that because it wasn't really growing on me. I came back at 901 and now have 10 and in the last several months, I've really come to enjoy Modo. I keep discovering things about it I had no idea it was capable of. Just the other day for example I discovered it is able to save a progressive render so you can come back to it and further refine it from that point. That's one of the big reasons I loved Fprime.

Besides, with LW3DG being so silent, what the hell else are we going to talk about?

erikals
01-08-2017, 08:22 PM
...talk about?
well, we got snow today... tuesday we might have rain...

stiff paper
01-09-2017, 11:23 AM
...I discovered it is able to save a progressive render so you can come back to it and further refine it from that point.
Except on those occasions when it corrupts the data and you realize you've been wasting your time. Actually, to be fair, they've probably fixed that bug now. Probably.

Who knows, maybe LW Next will do this?


I keep discovering things about it I had no idea it was capable of.
Modo did that to me a lot. I found it pretty annoying. Back in the day, when software used to come with a proper manual, you could just read the whole manual and then you'd know everything that was in the software. You didn't know how to use it, no, but you did at least know that things existed. Help files simply don't do that. Not for me, anyway. Maybe if modo'd had a manual I wouldn't have given up on it.


That's one of the big reasons I loved Fprime.
I still miss it. I'll never understand why Worley didn't make a new iteration of fPrime that worked in Linear ColorSpace.


Besides, with LW3DG being so silent, what the hell else are we going to talk about?
You do have a point.

hrgiger
01-09-2017, 03:01 PM
Except on those occasions when it corrupts the data and you realize you've been wasting your time. Actually, to be fair, they've probably fixed that bug now. Probably.

Who knows, maybe LW Next will do this?
.

I would be quite happy if LightWave implemented this as well, I used it quite a bit with Fprime. One of the things I do like in Modo is mesh lights (meshes as a light type) and I mentioned that a while back on the LWiki facebook page and Matt did say that had been discussed so I would love to see that as well eventually.

bobakabob
01-10-2017, 08:30 AM
Sounds interesting. Arnold also has mesh lights. Not tried them yet. Any advantages? How are they different to illuminated polys?

hrgiger
01-10-2017, 10:14 AM
Theyre an actual light type and they produce much cleaner results than luminous polygons.

lardbros
01-10-2017, 10:43 AM
To be more precise, around thirty years ago it was a piece of proprietary software running on proprietary hardware though much used and highly valued it would most likely be dead by now if it hadn't totally reinvented itself, I think that was the kind of argument I was trying to make and what matches the original posters argument, LW needs to reinvent itself, just matching every one else feature for feature will impress no one.

Houdini has made huge steps in transforming itself from a difficult to use application, becoming more user/artist friendly. Not quite up there with Maya just yet, but every time I go to Siggraph I see more and more people using Houdini.
Even seen Maya within Houdini, and it seems to be used more and more for high-end animation and VFX. It's Maya or Houdini for fluid, or smoke FX, and character animation, plus a plethora of home-grown tools. Especially Framestore. Nearly all of their tools are homegrown. Impressive to say the least.

Ztreem
01-10-2017, 10:47 AM
I would be quite happy if LightWave implemented this as well, I used it quite a bit with Fprime. One of the things I do like in Modo is mesh lights (meshes as a light type) and I mentioned that a while back on the LWiki facebook page and Matt did say that had been discussed so I would love to see that as well eventually.

I think DP lights have a mesh light. I remember testing it several years ago.

jasonwestmas
01-10-2017, 11:47 AM
Sounds interesting. Arnold also has mesh lights. Not tried them yet. Any advantages? How are they different to illuminated polys?

I sometimes need a more precise light shape without having to test out a dozen photometric files. Lights are always faster than using GI for everything. Although I find myself using rectangle and circle lights the most for interriors. Photometric lights are cool when you need a fancy type of "spotlight shape" to show up on objects.

lardbros
01-18-2017, 06:17 AM
I think DP lights have a mesh light. I remember testing it several years ago.

DP does have custom 'meshlights' choice, but it was a little slow if I remember correctly.

Norka
01-18-2017, 07:34 AM
I had to double-check the dates on these posts... folks talking about missing FPrime.. wanting mesh lights.. etc. Um, you guys should really, really look into Octane LW, once and for all. I find it pretty astonishing that Octane is mentioned so little in LW forums. I guess most of us Octane LW users spend way more time on Octane forums, but I like to pop over here too, because I occasionally find some useful info here. I can understand that hobbyists (which I'm sure a fair amount of you are) would need to be pretty hardcore to make the leap to Octane, but certainly not pros. I pounced on Octane LW the very week it became available back in 2012, and never looked back. I have used LW's native renderer less than 5 times in over four years, and use Octane LW virtually every day, professionally, and it has completely transformed my work. I am not looking to start another silly discussion on Octane's merits, and see yet more old-school LWers poo-pooing Octane because they can't/won't see how superior Octane's render engine is to LW's, and how using Octane with multiple high-end gaming GPUs is an effing thing of utter beauty. I just want to remind folks, yet again, that it is there, and they are truly doing themselves a major disservice by not looking hard at Octane and (unbiased, physically accurate) GPU rendering, if they work in a professional capacity. My Octane licences and multiple GPUs have paid for themselves many, many times over. Octane is easily among the best investments I have ever made in my entire life.

Spinland
01-18-2017, 08:01 AM
Just for a few of us Mac users: Octane is still a non-starter until it fully supports OpenCL.

Ztreem
01-18-2017, 09:43 AM
Just for a few of us Mac users: Octane is still a non-starter until it fully supports OpenCL.

Or wait for this: http://venturebeat.com/2016/03/09/otoy-breakthrough-lets-game-developers-run-the-best-graphics-software-across-platforms/

50one
01-18-2017, 10:43 AM
Been out for months!

Is it out yet or are we still speculating?

Started new job in the meantine, C4D only but I coukd see some 2017 features wouldn't hurt when added to workflow.

jwiede
01-18-2017, 03:04 PM
Is it out yet or are we still speculating?

Same as it was, no news, no release. Tricaster forums more active than LW forums lately.

Still, "Everything's FINE!" :devil:

50one
01-18-2017, 04:06 PM
Ohhhhh! Shame.


Anyhow, whoever did this:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2V89VH0h8eo&feature=youtu.be

Well done!

Wondering about the renderer tho...

jwiede
01-18-2017, 05:12 PM
Wondering about the renderer tho...

The recent newsletter article showed some screen shots that suggested it was rendered using Octane (in LW). There's one screen shot where the Octane tab is actually selected in Layout.

I'm having trouble describing it, but there's something about the lighting, and the detailed realism of certain surfaces (such as ground in still above, esp. how it combines with the DoF) which make me believe the render is NOT from LW's render engine. Possibly just the subtle "tells" of an "unbiased" engine -- as I said, a bit difficult to verbalize.

samurai_x
01-18-2017, 05:21 PM
Lw 2017 are we there yet?

rustythe1
01-19-2017, 02:45 AM
yep, board now, where's my new toys, the wait is now getting quite painful, like a 4 year old a month before xmas.

TheLexx
01-19-2017, 03:26 AM
I had to double-check the dates on these posts... folks talking about missing FPrime.. wanting mesh lights.. etc. Um, you guys should really, really look into Octane LW, once and for all. I find it pretty astonishing that Octane is mentioned so little in LW forums. I guess most of us Octane LW users spend way more time on Octane forums, but I like to pop over here too, because I occasionally find some useful info here. I can understand that hobbyists (which I'm sure a fair amount of you are) would need to be pretty hardcore to make the leap to Octane, but certainly not pros. I pounced on Octane LW the very week it became available back in 2012, and never looked back. I have used LW's native renderer less than 5 times in over four years, and use Octane LW virtually every day, professionally, and it has completely transformed my work. I am not looking to start another silly discussion on Octane's merits, and see yet more old-school LWers poo-pooing Octane because they can't/won't see how superior Octane's render engine is to LW's, and how using Octane with multiple high-end gaming GPUs is an effing thing of utter beauty. I just want to remind folks, yet again, that it is there, and they are truly doing themselves a major disservice by not looking hard at Octane and (unbiased, physically accurate) GPU rendering, if they work in a professional capacity. My Octane licences and multiple GPUs have paid for themselves many, many times over. Octane is easily among the best investments I have ever made in my entire life.I am not experienced in rendering, but some things:-



I once read that Octane had some sort of texture memory limit to a single GPU, regardless of how many GPUs used to render overall. Is that still the case ?
Physically based materials sounds really good, but is there some sort of chart where you can get precise values ? I am particularly thinking of photorealistic human skin, hair, and the various parts of the human eye so they appear "real" and interact properly with different lighting. How does one ascertain these values ?
I occasionally see references to Nvidia Iray, which I understand is similar in principle to Octane. Is Octane massively advantageous to Iray ?


Any thoughts from anyone appreciated.

50one
01-19-2017, 05:50 AM
The recent newsletter article showed some screen shots that suggested it was rendered using Octane (in LW). There's one screen shot where the Octane tab is actually selected in Layout.

I'm having trouble describing it, but there's something about the lighting, and the detailed realism of certain surfaces (such as ground in still above, esp. how it combines with the DoF) which make me believe the render is NOT from LW's render engine. Possibly just the subtle "tells" of an "unbiased" engine -- as I said, a bit difficult to verbalize.


Yes, wasn't sure whethwr it was arnold or Octane, but guessed it octane. Looks brilliant for sure. I will be moving to Octane this or next week but with C4D. So cannot wait to play around.

Norka
01-19-2017, 06:34 AM
I am not experienced in rendering, but some things:-



I once read that Octane had some sort of texture memory limit to a single GPU, regardless of how many GPUs used to render overall. Is that still the case ?
Physically based materials sounds really good, but is there some sort of chart where you can get precise values ? I am particularly thinking of photorealistic human skin, hair, and the various parts of the human eye so they appear "real" and interact properly with different lighting. How does one ascertain these values ?
I occasionally see references to Nvidia Iray, which I understand is similar in principle to Octane. Is Octane massively advantageous to Iray ?


Any thoughts from anyone appreciated.

1 -- It is still the case that the GPU with the lowest amount of VRAM sets the limit for how large a scene can be rendered. But you know what - don't slap an old GTX460 (et al) in with your 980Ti(s) and you'll be fine. I never run into problems with memory. Ever. And I was working with 1GB 460s originally, then 3GB 580s, and now 6GB 980Ti(s). Plus, you have the ability to turn on Out of Core Memory, which puts textures into system RAM as needed, and only uses GPU memory for geometry.. which is nice in a pinch, I'm sure.. though I have never needed it...

2 -- There are tons of Octane-ready skin shaders available - free and commercial. There are also gobs of Octane textures in the LiveDB in Octane, which can be used freely and also reverse-engineered in node editor while you are learning PBR texturing. And huge improvements with new features are coming very soon to Octane's version 3.1 texturing with OSL (Open Shading Language) support. It was already pretty effing wonderful, but about to get even crazier in 3.1. Exciting stuff.

3 -- There is not just Iray, but a bunch of GPU render engines out there. I am biased, because I love Octane so damn much. But yeah, Octane has a huge advantage over all other render engines, imho. Mostly because other GPU render engines don't have Jules Urbach, Otoy's founder and CEO.

4 -- You didn't ask, but I will tell you, and the guy pumping my gas, the old lady walking down the sidewalk in front of my crib: Juanjo, the Octane LW (and Houdini) plugin developer is THE BEST. He is the uberdev. This is damn important, and warrants mentioning, because having a plug dev of his caliber, who knows the LW sdk inside and out, and is fast, helpful, professional... it makes using Octane LW even that much better.

ianr
01-19-2017, 08:37 AM
Feb the 20th is soon arriving (A Prev release day) what will it bring?

ianr
01-19-2017, 08:41 AM
Ohhhhh! Shame.


Anyhow, whoever did this:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2V89VH0h8eo&feature=youtu.be

Well done!

Wondering about the renderer tho...



THEY GOTTA RUN THAT in the NEWSLETTER AT LEAST.

rustythe1
01-19-2017, 09:47 AM
they posted it on FB

50one
01-19-2017, 10:13 AM
Feb the 20th is soon arriving (A Prev release day) what will it bring?

More speculation and pity?

jwiede
01-19-2017, 12:25 PM
THEY GOTTA RUN THAT in the NEWSLETTER AT LEAST.

It's the first article on Lightwave3d.com, and was the first article in the latest newsletter (IIRC).

jwiede
01-19-2017, 12:31 PM
More speculation and pity?

+1 :devil:

Chris S. (Fez)
01-19-2017, 12:34 PM
That line from Princess Bride: "Get used to disappointment"

creacon
01-19-2017, 01:26 PM
I hope NVIDIA authorized them to do that.


Or wait for this: http://venturebeat.com/2016/03/09/otoy-breakthrough-lets-game-developers-run-the-best-graphics-software-across-platforms/

50one
01-19-2017, 01:33 PM
It's the first article on Lightwave3d.com, and was the first article in the latest newsletter (IIRC).

....First thing I thought after seeing that black holes video was that it has some certain feel to it, like that old music clip - Starlight, it makes sense now. Same studio.


Edit. Holy crap, that was 17 years ago....

ActionBob
01-19-2017, 02:38 PM
People complain about what Lightwave can or cannot do. They complain about a release that they know little about and yet, in the same thread, a posting of an excellent example of some very interesting and wonderful looking work accomplished with it.

Go figure...

-Adrian

50one
01-19-2017, 03:11 PM
People complain about what Lightwave can or cannot do. They complain about a release that they know little about and yet, in the same thread, a posting of an excellent example of some very interesting and wonderful looking work accomplished with it.

Go figure...

-Adrian


Some people struggle to understand that no one is complaining about software but rather about marketing or lack of it and lack of comms and honesty.

I have made numerous efforts to explain this in layman terms.

Yet I keep reading that 'we' complain about software....

Go figure...

jasonwestmas
01-19-2017, 03:11 PM
People complain about what Lightwave can or cannot do. They complain about a release that they know little about and yet, in the same thread, a posting of an excellent example of some very interesting and wonderful looking work accomplished with it.

Go figure...

-Adrian

We can do anything with lightwave, given enough time. These days its more about speed than possibilities.


. . .and communication. ^

MichaelT
01-19-2017, 03:53 PM
I hope NVIDIA authorized them to do that.

Don't have to. What they've presumably done is to recreate how CUDA behaves, and mimic the same on any hardware. I would suspect though, that if the hardware lacks features, they are turning to software calculations to fill the gaps. So it won't run as fast on those devices. Speculative of course.. but that is how I would have done it. All you need is their API, which is already public.

jwiede
01-19-2017, 05:35 PM
All you need is their API, which is already public.

Published != public domain. APIs can be subject to IP rights controls. I'm guessing that if protected, they licensed as needed from Nvidia.

MichaelT
01-20-2017, 02:50 AM
Published != public domain. APIs can be subject to IP rights controls. I'm guessing that if protected, they licensed as needed from Nvidia.

As a general rule.. ideas are not patentable, nor are they subject to copyright. Anyone can create a function called 'open_door', and does just that. Opens a door. They might even have the same variable.. called 'insert_key'. For it to work. But then again, I would not be at all surprised if (in the US) there is yet another silly twist of the law. Like the one that you can patent anything, even if it is already exists. Like patenting preexisting DNA, just because you 'found' it.

Schwyhart
01-20-2017, 08:12 AM
LW3DG must have a large reserve for operating expenses to last this long without a release. I think that's a good sign.

sadkkf
01-20-2017, 09:32 AM
LW3DG must have a large reserve for operating expenses to last this long without a release. I think that's a good sign.

or very good credit. :)

Norka
01-20-2017, 09:36 AM
True dat. But let me state again, in hopes LW3DG might possibly read this: Let us (that want to) upgrade now and have access to LW2017 in progress. Call it Paid Beta.. whatever. I believe we can have multiple installations of LW concurrently. Who cares if it crashes every ten minutes? Let me play like a giddy little child with all the new toys, and get my real work done in the very stable 2015.3. Put some cold hard cash in the bank, while you work to squish the last of the bugs, which apparently is taking much, much longer than anticipated.

Schwyhart
01-20-2017, 09:48 AM
Newtek/LW3DG has been around for awhile now and should be established enough to not rely on loans. If you run a company that way, it has a high probability of failing.
Loans are dumb and are no way to run a business.

sadkkf
01-20-2017, 10:01 AM
Newtek/LW3DG has been around for awhile now and should be established enough to not rely on loans. If you run a company that way, it has a high probability of failing.
Loans are dumb and are no way to run a business.

It was only a joke, but I agree.

jwiede
01-20-2017, 12:38 PM
As a general rule.. ideas are not patentable, nor are they subject to copyright. Anyone can create a function called 'open_door', and does just that. Opens a door. They might even have the same variable.. called 'insert_key'. For it to work. But then again, I would not be at all surprised if (in the US) there is yet another silly twist of the law. Like the one that you can patent anything, even if it is already exists. Like patenting preexisting DNA, just because you 'found' it.

APIs are every bit as copyrightable as source code, and Berne-signatory-wide, not just in USA. It's not just the function name, it's the entire protocol/set of API names and signatures -- the interfaces signatures and defined interaction patterns constitute enumeration of a process. Abstract ideas are not copyrightable, but process enumerations absolutely are copyrightable (recipes are the classic example of process enumeration), even viably patentable if they meet certain criteria.

MichaelT
01-20-2017, 02:50 PM
Well, I know Oracle is in a lawsuit with Google over this very thing. Well see how that plays out.

Norka
01-20-2017, 04:24 PM
Nothing to play out. I remember Jules stating that there was absolutely no legal issues whatsoever. I don't feel like hunting for post on Octane forums. It's there.

jwiede
01-20-2017, 05:54 PM
Nothing to play out. I remember Jules stating that there was absolutely no legal issues whatsoever. I don't feel like hunting for post on Octane forums. It's there.

Yep, I very much doubt Otoy would invest that much effort into a project if they weren't absolutely certain of their IP rights. They've had to some IP rights enforcement of their own recently (w.r.t. Fstorm), so almost certainly have "IP rights"-centric legal support, and are also likely deliberately keeping their own "ducks in a row".

jwiede
01-20-2017, 06:00 PM
Well, I know Oracle is in a lawsuit with Google over this very thing. Well see how that plays out.

You understand that's hardly the first major legal case involving defensible API IP rights, right? Such cases have been repeatedly upheld in USA and other Berne nations.

MichaelT
01-20-2017, 07:55 PM
You understand that's hardly the first major legal case involving defensible API IP rights, right? Such cases have been repeatedly upheld in USA and other Berne nations.

I have yet to see a single case where someone have lost a lawsuit for calling a function the same name. I really don't think we are looking at this the same way. There is more than one way to mimic behavior in an application.
In any case... it is early morning and I am in desperate need of some sleep :)

jwiede
01-20-2017, 09:13 PM
I have yet to see a single case where someone have lost a lawsuit for calling a function the same name.

For a single function, it likely isn't defensible IP (depending on how complex the parameter config). Neither are most single-sentences texts, single-step processes, nor one-ingredient recipes unless there's something _really_ unique about the sentence/step/prep. You can probably register a copyright, and might even be able to get a patent issued, but in such cases, they'll almost certainly be found invalid if you try to enact protection.

OTOH, the typical defensible case involves sets of multiple APIs (and their signatures), plus all the intrinsic sequencing between them in usage, and represents a complex-enough process to be considered defensible IP. Consult a lawyer in your jurisdiction if you want to understand what level of uniqueness and complexity needs to be present in a work for it to be considered "defensible IP" for a given IP protection (copyright and patent have different standards in that regard, and those standards also vary wildly by jurisdiction).

MichaelT
01-21-2017, 01:56 AM
For a single function, it likely isn't defensible IP (depending on how complex the parameter config). Neither are most single-sentences texts, single-step processes, nor one-ingredient recipes unless there's something _really_ unique about the sentence/step/prep. You can probably register a copyright, and might even be able to get a patent issued, but in such cases, they'll almost certainly be found invalid if you try to enact protection.

OTOH, the typical defensible case involves sets of multiple APIs (and their signatures), plus all the intrinsic sequencing between them in usage, and represents a complex-enough process to be considered defensible IP. Consult a lawyer in your jurisdiction if you want to understand what level of uniqueness and complexity needs to be present in a work for it to be considered "defensible IP" for a given IP protection (copyright and patent have different standards in that regard, and those standards also vary wildly by jurisdiction).

I do think that you have an overly strong belief in copyright. What you are describing is copyrighting phrases.. like how a sentence is written in a book. This sort of thing isn't protected, and for a good reason. It would be dangerous! It would paralyze writing, authors would not be able to write emulators. They would not be able to write books about (for instance) DirectX. Nor could anyone write tools on how to use DirectX. Forget UE4 for example. Forget code where a company writes a layer in which functions, and parameters are called the same as in DirectX. But with the sole purpose of combining that API to more limited hardware, and replacing parts of it with source code. etc. etc.. the answer to that is no... no no no. Calling things by the same name, is allowed (for now, and I will get to that) because limiting the rights in the regard you think is possible, is indeed dangerous. It have far and wide consequences that you haven't even considered. What isn't allowed is to copy the recipe, a.k.a the source code. Now.. like I mentioned, Oracle have sued Google precisely over this. If this ends up winning in favor of Oracle, it will have catastrophic consequences in the US (and many other countries) You especially really should care about Oracle not winning this one.

Finally, sadly enough.. software, and how things work are indeed patentable in the US. Whereas in the EU it isn't. Not because US companies haven't tried to lobby EU to accept the US style software patents for decades now. Something I hope (deeply) that they will never succeed in. US software patents (for instance click of a button) is a quadruple facepalm (because two hands aren't enough) in its stupidity.

But I really don't want to go deeper down this trench.. I feel very (with capitals) strongly about anti software patents. And this topic have great potential to end up in an argument. And I don't want that :)

So I will bow out of this topic, before it gets even worse.

Ernest
01-21-2017, 09:10 PM
Federal Judge Alsup ruled that you cannot implement a complete IP ownership of the total taxonomy of a library because that would be anticompetitive and the ownership of the API IP only holds as part of the full implementation IP.

Oracle must resort, therefore, to claiming that it owns,by copyright, the exclusive right to any and all possible implementations of the taxonomy-likecommand structure for the 166 packages and/or any subpart thereof — even though it copyrighted only one implementation. To accept Oracle’s claim would be to allow anyoneto copyright one version of code to carry out a system of commands and thereby bar all othersfrom writing their own different versions to carry out all or part of the same commands. No holding has ever endorsed such a sweeping proposition.

Now, I know other judges disagreed, but this goes to show that even among the most learned magistrates on the subject, this is not a clear-cut issue.

MichaelT
01-22-2017, 04:04 AM
Well, that is how poorly I have followed that case :) I didn't even know it was over. I'm very happy the judge came to a good conclusion however.

Spinland
01-22-2017, 04:26 AM
I do think that you have an overly strong belief in copyright. What you are describing is copyrighting phrases.. like how a sentence is written in a book. This sort of thing isn't protected, and for a good reason. It would be dangerous! It would paralyze writing, authors would not be able to write emulators. They would not be able to write books about (for instance) DirectX. Nor could anyone write tools on how to use DirectX.

FWIW, I'm an American (and mostly-former software engineer) who agrees with you. Maybe that's one of the reasons I quit the corporate "rat race" to become a far-less-lucrative artist/musician/drinker of beer (and good Scotch).

I, also, feel strongly about this (as I see it) problem but will not argue about it here. There's no point. :jam:

gerry_g
01-22-2017, 05:52 AM
I though in the Sun V Google Java (hope I got that right) case it was as much about plagiarism as copyright, whole chunks of the original being copied and Sun Java references in it being deleted much the way an author might steal someone else's concept and just change the names and the locations and call it original as in the guy who wrote an episode of the Twilight Zone who got ripped off by James cameron for Terminator, an wholly original masterpiece, or the guy who recently tried to sue Led Zeppelin for lifting the main riff of his song for Stairway to Heaven. Copyright is a fairly loose concept surely, being based on what the copyer added to the original as in Cameron who only added his name and credit and therefore lost or Led Zeppelin who demonstrated a substantial difference and won

Lito
01-22-2017, 08:10 AM
I am pretty sure that Oracle v Google was more of Oracle trying to revoke Google's use of Java for Android's API after Sun Microsystems (the original creator) gave them permission to use it. IIRC Sun gave Goggle the right to use Java as the base for Android's API but after Oracle bought Sun, Oracle wanted to change that because Oracle wanted Google to pay licensing fees. Google was not bound by the new Oracle terms because they were using the Sun version with permission as the base for Android's API, Oracle tried to get around the old licensing terms via Copyright law.

MichaelT
01-22-2017, 03:23 PM
I seem to remember Sun released the whole API as GPL way back around 2005-2006 ..ish. Not sure on the date there. I don't think many realize what a close call this case really was.