PDA

View Full Version : NewTek wake up!!!



Deep Image
03-21-2005, 03:27 AM
:mad:

Hallo NT what's going on???

Please be onest and come out of hidding. Give us a reason why there are so many problems/isuses with the Mac platform and how is it going to be solved? It's realy not a good sign when people write about down grading LW including my self (curendly running 8.0.1 because 8.2.1 is crashing most off the time). Or even worse buying new machines (G5's) in the hope there favourite app (upgrade) will work.

This was a reply to Ben Vrost off NT Europe 21 feb 2005


Hi Peter,

The text colour change was as a result of better text handling on the Mac. The colour won't stay black for long, I can assure you.

Best regards,


Hi Ben,

Thanks for your reply and good to know the color within the text fields won't stay black for long. But honestly this shouldn't be a question, these are basics for a program. Ben it's not personal but why is it that Mac-versions of LW are not working properly? There are always so many bugs with every time there's a new release. And this is the case form Version 5.6 (this is where I started with LW). With each new release I'm hoping for a rock-solid LW. Sadly this is not the case and with the last update 8.2, I'm loosing faith. I even reinstalled 8.0.1. And I'm sorry to say because when it's comes to image quality LW is still strong but other apps are catching up fast (C..... M.... and don't forget the new player M...) They don't crash as often as LW.
For me there is just one question because I work as a professional I have to rely on my tools? Please make it stable ROCK-SOLID and you make a lot of friends. Make it as stable as Photoshop CS( matter off speach), it rarely crashes. And with the next update I rather have a stable rock-solid not crashing program with no work around or plugin swapping, then 50 or more new features. And to be honest I expect a good working app because I pay fore it.

I only write this, despite the malfunctions because I belief that LW can surpass all the other apps. NewTek please make it work!!!

Best Regards

StudioPéPé
Peter Gerritsen

Chuck
03-21-2005, 12:51 PM
Beg your pardon, but we're not hiding by any stretch of the imagination, nor are we sleeping. :)

If you have frustrations then by all means letting us know the specifics will help us to resolve those issues for you. As for what steps we are taking to improve our development efforts on the Mac, a moment's glance at the list of topics here would have shown you two very important efforts toward the improvement of LightWave on the Mac.

First is that we have an open call for LightWave Mac Beta Testers, under the thread title "LightWave Needs You," which I note that only 63 people on this section have viewed.

[note: the open call concluded and the thread has now been removed. The link has been replaced with the quoted message.]

LightWave Needs You!
Many users have asked how they can participate in the LightWave Beta Program. Well, here's your chance to get in on the ground-floor.

NewTek 3D Marketing is looking for registered owners of LightWave [8] that would like to help us with open beta testing of LightWave update release candidates. This means that you would help us do secondary beta testing of LightWave updates just before they are released to the public. In order to participate, you must be a registered owner of LightWave [8] and be willing to sign a Non-Disclosure Agreement. Owners of both Macs and PCs are welcome.

If you would be able to help with this effort as the need arises, please email us at [email protected] Please provide your full name, email address, forum User ID, LightWave 10-digit serial number, and information about your computer setup.

We will accept applicants for this program until 6:00pm CST on Monday March 21, 2005, at which time this message will be removed from the forums. Those accepted for this program will be notified on Wednesday March 23, 2005.

Thank you.
__________________
Kurtis Harris
NewTek 3D Marketing Team
LightWave3D.com

Second is the Mac Bug Workshop thread, which is also sticky at the top of the forum, and which our current Mac beta testers and our QA staff are monitoring, and testing to confirm reported problems, and our programming staff will of course be fixing issues as rapidly as can be managed. A significant number of Mac issues are fixed in each update.

LightWave 8.2 Mac Bug Workshop (http://vbulletin.newtek.com/showthread.php?t=32737)

It would probably take just a bit longer to find the third recent significant event for Mac Development, but the two fellows who created Electric Image, the longtime leader for professional 3D on the Mac before LightWave came to that platform, Jay Roth and Mark Granger, are now on the LightWave development team. Roth is now the executive overseeing 3D product management, and Granger is on the programming team.

NewTek adds Jay Roth and Mark Granger to LightWave Team (http://vbulletin.newtek.com/showthread.php?t=34469)

New Lightwave Hires and Mac Development (http://vbulletin.newtek.com/showthread.php?t=34522)

We're also making significant changes to our QA methodologies in order to improve the quality of future releases. Our Mac Specialist, Scott Thompson, will have a significant role in those changes.

Deep Image
03-22-2005, 04:18 AM
Good morning Chuck,

Wow that's what I call a reply! And to be onest yes I'm frustrated, since the launch of LW 8. There are so many issues. In my humble opinion this should not be the case. If you buy somthing you want it to work. And with a upgrade I expect it to be enhenced over it's predecessor. Otherwise, why the use of an upgrade? What I mean by this is that the basics should work rock solid. For example UI and plugins (in my case EPSF-loader. I wil put a list of issues in the bug thread later on).

Sorry Shuck I did have a moment's glance at the list of topics. Since I have upgraded to LW 8 I'm frequently visiting the Discussion Forum! And I also was one of the only 63 people who viewed "LightWave Needs You".
But this still does not answer the question wy it is posible that there are so many issues on the launch of LW 8. And right now as we speek my issues are not resolved.

It's realy good to hear that the creator's of Electric Image are onboard. Back then when I had to choose between 3D pacage's. The choose was between LW and EI. I choose for LW for it's modeler and rendering output. So the two favorites have joined. I hope that they bring the speed into LW's renderengine and more. So the LW-Mac future looks bright.

Greatings,
DeepImage

:)

fronzel
03-22-2005, 11:44 AM
Make sure you save your eps, as a version 8.0 out of illustrator.

monovich
03-22-2005, 06:28 PM
is the Lightwave Needs You thread gone? link doesn't work. I never saw the thread.

-s

Ryhnio
03-22-2005, 09:34 PM
yes, i to would like to beta test, but the link is dead..... (i even did a search)


-ryhnio

Darth Mole
03-23-2005, 01:53 AM
The deadline to sign up to the beta test list was yesterday, which is why the link has bene removed. I mailed to sign up, but no reply as yet...

mattclary
03-23-2005, 07:34 AM
But this still does not answer the question wy it is posible that there are so many issues on the launch of LW 8. And right now as we speek my issues are not resolved.


Umm... Yes it does. Because if you had volunteered to be a beta tester, you could have reported the issue and gotten it into the release.

As someone who actually works in a QA department, I can tell you it's just not possible to find all the bugs in a product. Take a 10 member team, working on a product for 6 months, that's about 10,000 man-hours. Now relase the product. Say 2000 people use that product. If each of those persons spends 5 hours using the product, they have just met the same usage level that you QA team did in 6 months. Now give them a week, they have 8 times the usage your QA team ever saw. Then start taking into account all the plugins Joe User uses and all the different types of workflow the end user uses that aren't "out of the box". That's where beta testers come into play. They give the product real-world exposure and increase the raw man-hours of exposure that is needed to uncover problems.

eblu
03-23-2005, 09:17 AM
Umm... Yes it does.

matt,
As a user I appreciate your attitude that QA is responsible for finding and marking Bugs, that the answer to why there are so many is that QA doesn't have the man hours. Its a very "can do" way of looking at things, but the big picture is... There shouldn't be This many bugs to begin with.

there are Known bugs in Lightwave that people work around, every day, that have been in the product since version 6. for some reason, they don't get fixed. LScript, for instance just doesn't work. It has so many bugs on the mac side, that its a waste of time to work with it. Lets ignore for a moment that it is a half hearted attempt to weld a scripting engine onto Lightwave. Its been crippled by the issues that have already been identified, and are currently Waiting to get fixed.

Recently, I've noticed that changes to simple things apparently break "not-related" items such as the break in the EPSF loader. This is a symptom of severe problems with the design and implementation of Lightwave 3d. Thats the reason for all of the issues with LW8. QA can only do so much, zero tolerance for bugs from the beginning, regardless of the implications (in this case a complete re-write is a shoe in as an implication) is the only answer to the growing list of issues facing lightwave.

I appreciate your zeal, but I feel that the amount of issues/bugs in Lightwave are way outside the bell curve, and thats why so many slip through the cracks.

mattclary
03-23-2005, 11:45 AM
I feel that the amount of issues/bugs in Lightwave are way outside the bell curve, and thats why so many slip through the cracks.

I disagree. In calculating the bell curve for number of bugs present, you need to take into account the complexity of the product and the manpower available to code said product. How do you think staffing for developers at Newtek compares to the other big players in 3D? Do you think LW developers are sitting around drinking coffee while the old bugs go unattended? Every time you make a decision to dedicate a coder to working on one aspect, it means you have to acknowledge that another aspect is going to get short shrift. It's a calculated risk that you are going to please the majority of your user base and only irritate a minority. Writing code takes time, not just to write, but to figure out what is breaking it. Make your code change, and guess what? You might have just broken something else.

If you feel LightWave is disproportionally buggy, why do you still use it?

monovich
03-23-2005, 12:29 PM
I think the self-flagellating monk made a good point. I do sympathize for the people who's workflow differs from mine and who are more hindered by the bugs than I am, though.

eblu
03-23-2005, 09:22 PM
I disagree. In calculating the bell curve for number of bugs present, you need to take into account the complexity of the product and the manpower available to code said product. How do you think staffing for developers at Newtek compares to the other big players in 3D? Do you think LW developers are sitting around drinking coffee while the old bugs go unattended? Every time you make a decision to dedicate a coder to working on one aspect, it means you have to acknowledge that another aspect is going to get short shrift. It's a calculated risk that you are going to please the majority of your user base and only irritate a minority. Writing code takes time, not just to write, but to figure out what is breaking it. Make your code change, and guess what? You might have just broken something else.

If you feel LightWave is disproportionally buggy, why do you still use it?

ahhh statistics... another word for subjectivity. Matt, I don't think the lightwave engineers are sitting idle, I Know they are hard at work, making new features, and fixing bugs. I'm sorry if you don't like my bell curve, but I stand by it. Lightwave Is far too buggy for new features to be added, it goes against common sense, and it brings to mind metaphors about building houses on sand. If one simply compares the bug-feature ratio, in the past few years you'll notice an alarming trend... Many more features, with bugs, and old bugs that never get fixed. My bell curve doesn't take into consideration the hard work you guys do (I personally don't pay, or get paid, for man hours, its all about the bottom line... the results, and unlike me, you guys get paid Before the customer gets to see your work).
My goal isn't to undermine Lightwave here, or irritate the individuals who work on it. My aim is to put in my two cents, to be an advocate for the Next big thing to happen to lightwave.

In that light I would like to humbly suggest that the user base is not amused. The majority is now irritated, and the minority happy. in other words, the tide is a changin, and the calculated risk missed. I am fully aware that the development of Lightwave is a tug of war for resources and man hours, I don't expect miracles. What I do expect (and is becoming the rule not the exception) is that when something is broke, it gets fixed before something else is added. This, by most software developers, is considered the most important aspect of software development today, the flashy way to refer to it is by the phrase "zero tolerance", as in "zero tolerance for bugs." Sure, Lightwave is always going to have quirks, issues. But the choices in the past few years to ignore some new technologies, to add features instead of fixing the architecture of Lightwave, to decide that some bugs weren't worth fixing (as you imply in your post) have all put Lightwave in a bad spot.

Matt, I'm not gazing into a crystal ball here, theres no guess work to what I'm saying. Lightwave is going down the road to self imposed obsolescence, and I don't want it to. I've dumped other 3d applications in the past (that are now dead thank you very much), that have made the exact same argument you have just made today... "our customers demand features, and don't care about the bugs."(gross simplification) Let me tell you, with no uncertainty, that your customers, want a product that works as advertised, without poor design, work arounds, gotchas, glitches and issues. I know what I'm asking for here, its a heck of a lot of work. But when I started asking for it a scant 3-4 years ago, it wasn't nearly so much work as it is now. the longer Newtek waits, to decide to do things the right way, the deeper the hole will be, the longer it will take to get out of.

and for your question: why I use lightwave if I think its too buggy.
Matt, I use, Maya, Lightwave, Photoshop, Aftereffects, and Illustrator, almost every day. I am evaluating Modo right now (no comment). I would welcome any suggestions you may have for a Lightwave replacement ;)
I like Lightwave, despite the fact That I think its too Buggy. So I make myself a nuisance in the forums because I want Lightwave to be as good as it can be. I think Newtek can be a little deaf to the needs of the user, and when an opportunity presents itself, I make myself heard. the users want it fixed, first.

I will leave you with a proverb for business:
Its never too early to do things the right way, but it can easily become too late.

-eblu

Chuck
03-24-2005, 10:21 AM
In that light I would like to humbly suggest that the user base is not amused. The majority is now irritated, and the minority happy.

Matt, I'm not gazing into a crystal ball here, theres no guess work to what I'm saying.

Actually, it's just guesswork, and the facts don't bear it out. We've done several surveys on user satisfaction since releasing LightWave [8], and more than 80% of users feel that the product is as stable or more stable than previous versions, find the product satisfactory for their work, and would recommend that users who have not upgraded should do so.


But the choices in the past few years to ignore some new technologies, to add features instead of fixing the architecture of Lightwave, to decide that some bugs weren't worth fixing (as you imply in your post) have all put Lightwave in a bad spot.
[snip]
Lightwave is going down the road to self imposed obsolescence, and I don't want it to.

Again, that's just not the case. The new team is making a priority of addressing architectural updating and of addressing bugs as a major priority of development, including eliminating those that have been left unaddressed for some time now. We're doing our best to eliminate those in a reasonable priority order, and they will be taken care of, but it is the case that this will occur over the course of a number of releases. We're publishing the list of the bugs addressed with each release.

It is also a priority to streamline the workflow, and we have staff now who are dedicated just to the effort of working with users to make sure that things are revamped into the easiest and most straightforward workflow possible, and that as new features are implemented they are designed from the ground up to accomplish exactly what the users need them to accomplish, in the most efficient and intuitive way possible.

And that there are things we've not implemented yet does not mean that we're ignoring any new technologies. There seems to be to be a conflict at work in criticising that new features were implemented at all, while at the same criticising on the basis that other flavors of new features didn't get implemented. As you say, there's a lot of work to do on the core, and those new features that we have brought to the users required core work. Many of the more significant of those technologies that we haven't yet brought to users will also require core work to achieve, and we are in fact working on quite a few of the new technologies that you are assuming we're ignoring. When it's appropriate we'll be sharing information about those.

Sande
03-24-2005, 12:35 PM
Chuck, I hope speeding up the OpenGL-performance (especially in modeller) is a high priority-problem :)

mattclary
03-24-2005, 01:15 PM
Chuck, I hope speeding up the OpenGL-performance (especially in modeller) is a high priority-problem :)

Ditto. ;)

[gratuitous filler to thwart minumum message length rule]

Kuzey
03-24-2005, 01:33 PM
Hi Chuck,

That's cool, looking forward to seeing more great things from the Newtek group :)


I was just wondering, how many people applied to become a beta tester and did you get enough Mac members ??

Best of luck!!

Kuzey

harlan
03-24-2005, 07:11 PM
We've done several surveys on user satisfaction since releasing LightWave [8], and more than 80% of users feel that the product is as stable or more stable than previous versions


Yeah, but that's not saying much. A three legged table is definitely "as stable" or "more stable" than a two legged table, but neither will properly stand on their own. ;)

Okay, so I'm just being evil...take note of the winky smiley.

None the less, LW currently is and always has been a quality & fairly solid product; it's just that it now seems stagnate while undergoing these core changes. I agree that the core changes are a neccesity, but "need" at the expense of innovation is never pleasant.

While, I for one don't mind the wait on the reworking of the core; I do however get irritated when one continuously attempts to re-invent the wheel rather than integrating the methods already in existance (and acceptance).

BeeVee
03-25-2005, 02:06 AM
And you know, I just have to disagree... sometimes a three-legged table is more stable than a four-legged one... our particular focus as 3D people makes it clear - a four vertex poly can be non-planar, but not a three vertex one... ;) (again, careful note should be taken of the winking smiley)

:)

B

Sande
03-25-2005, 02:45 AM
our particular focus as 3D people makes it clear - a four vertex poly can be non-planar, but not a three vertex one... ;)

Well, actually... ;)
I've seen a couple of times modeller's statistic window saying I have non planar polygons, when the object has consisted of only triangles...
I don't know, maybe it's a bug, maybe it's a feature :cool:

Scazzino
03-25-2005, 01:06 PM
Chuck, I hope speeding up the OpenGL-performance (especially in modeller) is a high priority-problem :)

Looks like it's a high priority item for Apple, ATI and NVidia too... and the OpenGL implementation itself on Mac OS X may need to be better optimized before LW will be able to perform much faster....

http://www.architosh.com/news/2005-03/2005c0325-opengl-apple.html

-MikeS

harlan
03-25-2005, 04:45 PM
Looks like it's a high priority item for Apple, ATI and NVidia too... and the OpenGL implementation itself on Mac OS X may need to be better optimized before LW will be able to perform much faster....

http://www.architosh.com/news/2005-03/2005c0325-opengl-apple.html

-MikeS

The OpenGL implementation is quite nice in OSX. As with anything, however, faster would be better. As indicated in that link, Apple is seeking to make the OSX implementation of OpenGL the best in the industry.

The OpenGL problem in LW is most assuredly on the shoulders of Lightwave as other applications (ie: Modo, Maya, etc...) are just as fast on the Mac as they are on a PC using the same GPU. Some games perform identically on both platforms with a smiliar GPU system as well, but then, there are also those that don't.

When the Mac LW Team finally port over to XCode, I'm certain we will see vast improvements in LW's performance overall. The two apps I mentioned earlier that perform wonderfully under OSX, are ironically, coded from scratch in XCode.

harlan
03-25-2005, 04:46 PM
And you know, I just have to disagree... sometimes a three-legged table is more stable than a four-legged one... our particular focus as 3D people makes it clear - a four vertex poly can be non-planar, but not a three vertex one... ;) (again, careful note should be taken of the winking smiley)

:)

B

HEY!! SCREW YO... Oh, wait, you had a winky smiley in there! ;)

Sande
03-27-2005, 03:48 AM
Looks like it's a high priority item for Apple, ATI and NVidia too... and the OpenGL implementation itself on Mac OS X may need to be better optimized before LW will be able to perform much faster....

Well, since I'm suffering from modeller's slow OpenGL-implementation while using Windows, I can guess it's more to do with Newtek than Apple. Especially as other apps on both platforms seem to be faster with their OGL...

Erizo
03-27-2005, 12:03 PM
Chuck, I hope speeding up the OpenGL-performance (especially in modeller) is a high priority-problem :)

YEs, that is the most important thing for Mac version.