PDA

View Full Version : Any news on 8.5??



badllarma
07-04-2005, 12:08 PM
Just thought I'd ask :D

KillMe
07-04-2005, 03:10 PM
expect well find out something soon - after all siggraph is coming up soon and thats when everyone likes to have some news to deliver

anyway i doubt they will want to let anything cool slip out prior to then

badllarma
07-04-2005, 03:28 PM
Been very quiet for a couple of months looking forward to Siggraph as you never know :)
A thermal nuclear render box that plugs directly into Lightwave would be very useful now, or Hypervoxels that render a light speed for my current project :eek: :D

mav3rick
07-04-2005, 04:59 PM
let em work guys... this time no mistake..... they have to give STRONG answer to competiteon.
cross fingers.. for both .... them and us

Rich
07-04-2005, 07:05 PM
What about 8.4? :D

Nemoid
07-05-2005, 06:07 AM
skipped :D LOL

rumours say that 8.5 will be kick ***** so i'm waiting Siggraph to know more.

tischbein3
07-05-2005, 07:46 AM
welcome to the time loop (again)

digital verve
07-05-2005, 08:10 AM
My speculation :D

LW 8.5 will be a killer release inc proper edges, ngon subd, further improved psd export, SDK opened up enough to allow FPrime to render all that LW can (apart from maybe Hypervoxels), big rendering enchancements inc much improved motion blur, modeller workflow refinements plus a few new modelling tools and some more.

Followed by 8.6 and 8.7 bug fix and maintenance releases.

Lightwave 9 with an integrated (but separate in appearance modeller) allowing parametric and history stuff and a fluid system to die for :) Siggraph 2006 :)

Lightwolf
07-05-2005, 08:33 AM
... SDK opened up enough to allow FPrime to render all that LW can (apart from maybe Hypervoxels), ..
Well, you're already wrong here... LW 8.3 has brought the SDK changes for FPrime to render Hypervoxels/volumetrics (that should include HDInstance as well) already. I haven't tried those bits out yet, but the hooks are there...

Cheers,
Mike

tektonik
07-05-2005, 09:12 AM
lightwolf! please don't give us false hopes here!

hypervoxels / volumetric in fprime

why doesn't anyone on the worley disc group on yahoo talk about it ?

it is sooooooooooo cooooooooooool (if true...)

can anyone from newtek or worley confirm that ???

i am stuck on the ceiling with excitation

must get down

must find workarounds for fprime and HDinstance for the time being

pffff

Lightwolf
07-05-2005, 09:18 AM
Here is the quote from the release notes:

Updated Volumetric SDK and associated documentation, see the
lwvolume.h include file, and globals:volumeeval.html SDK documentation
files for details.
And if you look at the SDK shipped with 8.3 (not the one linked to on the LW page) you will find that third parties can now evaluate volumetrics.
If I remember correctly, this was slipped in in build 801 of LW8.3, the one they released two or three days after the offical release of LW8.3.

Cheers,
Mike

tektonik
07-05-2005, 09:28 AM
and your infinimap plug in ? will it talk to fprime soon ?

it is very good by the way

Lightwolf
07-05-2005, 09:31 AM
and your infinimap plug in ? will it talk to fprime soon ?

it is very good by the way
Getting seriously OT now... ;)
Shaders aren't support in FPrime yet, but who ever said infiniMap has to be a shader only :p Working on it, allthough FPrime opens a whole new can of worms in this special case (since it progressively refines the image and thus the texture...).
Cheers,
Mike

hrgiger
07-05-2005, 12:02 PM
Well, you're already wrong here... LW 8.3 has brought the SDK changes for FPrime to render Hypervoxels/volumetrics (that should include HDInstance as well) already. I haven't tried those bits out yet, but the hooks are there...

Cheers,
Mike

Chuck has already stated that the SDK changes do not give Fprime full access to render Hypervoxels/volumetrics but that progress was made in that area.

Sorry to pee in all your cornflakes.

lardbros
07-05-2005, 01:07 PM
Sorry to pee in all your cornflakes.

Gotta say... the cornflakes aren't tasting too bad! :D (only joking of course)

I heard that they weren't quite available... about the 'hooks' for volumetrics and f-prime. Shame, but i'm sure it'll come soon. It's the least important thing on my list anyway. Sure, it would be cool though.

I just want more streamlined existing features. If they have sorted everything that exists out, and add a couple of stonking features, i'll be well happy!

-NG-
07-05-2005, 03:55 PM
It will be released when it's released. :D

WizCraker
07-05-2005, 05:31 PM
Or they could be just waiting for Autodesk and Alias to catch up on the version numbering before the release 8.5.

Kurtis
07-05-2005, 06:48 PM
You'd really be willing to wait that long? Wow! I'll go tell Dev not to hurry.

Sorry, couldn't resist. :D

Silkrooster
07-05-2005, 07:49 PM
LOL, :D
Silk

ufo3d
07-05-2005, 10:38 PM
Wow! I'll go tell Dev not to hurry.

if you do that, then you will deserve this ... :D

Fraust
07-06-2005, 01:46 AM
if you do that, then you will deserve this ... :D

LOL... I second that.... (I love that show too.... fmp rocks)

Siggraph this year will make or break a lot of deals for people... I haven't felt so much tension over Siggraph in many years. You can tell because of the hot price wars from every company to which even newtek was selling LW at behind the office building prices.. not that I mind lower prices, but it makes me uneasy to see such a drastic change in the market... I thought for sure companies like Caligari/Hash would not be able to compete anymore (well... except "the company formerly known as discreet"... they refuse to lower the prices)

harlan
07-06-2005, 02:14 AM
Of course we would... so long as, during that same timeframe you brought Lightwave up to a comparable feature set as those other apps. ;)

Sorry, but I also couldn't resist. :)



You'd really be willing to wait that long? Wow! I'll go tell Dev not to hurry.

Sorry, couldn't resist. :D

Lightwolf
07-06-2005, 02:27 AM
Chuck has already stated that the SDK changes do not give Fprime full access to render Hypervoxels/volumetrics but that progress was made in that area.

Sorry to pee in all your cornflakes.
No worries. That's why I said I haven't tried the new hooks yet, so I can't judge how feasible they are, I just know they are there and volumetrics for FPrime seem to be high on the to do list...
And they will be there _before_ shader support it seems, which was my whole point ;)
Cheers,
Mike

Captain Obvious
07-06-2005, 03:58 AM
I've heard that Fprime renders SkyTracer, and that is volymetric, isn't it?

Panikos
07-06-2005, 04:07 AM
There are two Skytracers, a volumetric one and an Environmental one.
The second it simply replaces the backdrop, is visible is Reflections, Refractions and accounts for GI.
The volumetric one has volume, i.e its not flat, somehow it creates volumetric clouds etc

FPrime duplicates the Environment Skytracer, not the Volumetric one.

:o

toonafish
07-06-2005, 06:30 AM
groundhog day :D

lardbros
07-06-2005, 08:03 AM
groundhog day :D

Hahaha, so true... :D

Problem is afterwards there will be the same lull and disappointment as every year.

monovich
07-06-2005, 10:53 AM
wierd, I thought for sure fprime computed volumetrics in skytracer... when you could get it to work. I did lots of tests, and I'm 99% sure it was rendering volumetrics. One caveat... it was SLOW to render the volumetrics, it was just as slow or slower than LW. Try it yourselves with complex volumetric settings...

-s

Lightwolf
07-06-2005, 11:00 AM
The clouds in skytracer (the backdrop version) are rendered in a volumetric way as well, however, this is not the same as volumetric plugins (such as hypervoxels).
I wouldn't expect much of a speed up from FPrime rendering volumetrics, since the volumetric evaluation itself will still be within the plugin.
However, since FPrime will replace LWs raytracing functions (used to compute shadows on the volumetrics for example) you may expect speed ups in certain cases.

Cheers,
Mike

hrgiger
07-06-2005, 01:06 PM
Yeah, if I had a choice, I would choose Volumetrics first, shaders second on what Fprime can render...

kml12
07-06-2005, 02:48 PM
Volumetrics first would be great...

colkai
07-07-2005, 03:52 AM
Yeah, if I had a choice, I would choose Volumetrics first, shaders second on what Fprime can render...
Heh, the complete opposite for me, as I don't often use volumetrics, but I know what you mean. :)

Bytehawk
07-07-2005, 05:37 AM
"Soon."

"How soon is soon?"

"Longer than a little while, faster than later."

policarpo
07-07-2005, 08:43 PM
I hear 8.5 is gonna offer Parametric modeling tools along with a robust Multi-Pass rendering setup which will export After Effects and Digital Fusion project files.

Also, a type of iterative fPrime technology will be integrated along with the following advances:
1. Faster and cleaner Area Lights
2. Faster and cleaner GI
3. Faster Bones and a more robust and true setup process
4. Instancing will be prevalent in Layout and you will be able to grow objects over time because of a new parametric tool that is hooked up to extrusions/bevels.
5. All light types will offer Shadow Map, Raytrace and Area Light shadow types.
6. nGons
7. NonDestructive/Editable Splines
8. Fully configurable UI
9. Tighter Modeler and Layout Integration (it will feel closer to 1 application)
10. AO will be a multipass option
11. Overhauled HVs
12. Object/Axis Gizmo in modeler
13. Tearable Viewport windows so you can have as many as you want

Well...that's what I heard through the grapevine anyhoo. ;D

wacom
07-07-2005, 10:53 PM
If only it were true...oh wait it is...but only for $495...


I hear 8.5 is gonna offer Parametric modeling tools along with a robust Multi-Pass rendering setup which will export After Effects and Digital Fusion project files.

Also, a type of iterative fPrime technology will be integrated along with the following advances:
1. Faster and cleaner Area Lights
2. Faster and cleaner GI
3. Faster Bones and a more robust and true setup process
4. Instancing will be prevalent in Layout and you will be able to grow objects over time because of a new parametric tool that is hooked up to extrusions/bevels.
5. All light types will offer Shadow Map, Raytrace and Area Light shadow types.
6. nGons
7. NonDestructive/Editable Splines
8. Fully configurable UI
9. Tighter Modeler and Layout Integration (it will feel closer to 1 application)
10. AO will be a multipass option
11. Overhauled HVs
12. Object/Axis Gizmo in modeler
13. Tearable Viewport windows so you can have as many as you want

Well...that's what I heard through the grapevine anyhoo. ;D

policarpo
07-07-2005, 11:01 PM
Stranger things have happened. :dance:

Capt Lightwave
07-08-2005, 01:07 AM
AO? .




10. AO will be a multipass option


On closer thought....Advanced Options, right? 8/

Imatk
07-08-2005, 01:35 AM
All of this discussion of FPrime hooks is all well and good, but in a production environment Fprime can't render across a network.

Until that happens Fprime won't be a render solution. It's great to setup lights and if it does HVs then fine, but to be honest at the end of the day I want Lightwave to improve in other areas before they start worrying too much about Fprime.

I want more houses to use Lightwave. I want Lightwave to be seen as THE solution for 3d.

Now how to do that? I don't know. Marketing, better communication with beta members...whatever it takes I hope Newtek competes on a more head-to-head basis with Maya.

I have a lot of friends who keep saying Lightwave is dead as far as feature work. I don't believe that. The Aviator and Sin City looked pretty darned good.

Basically I don't want to have to learn Maya :)

Ok so... I'm off to learn Maya ;)

papou
07-08-2005, 01:49 AM
I hear 8.5 is gonna offer Parametric modeling tools along with a robust Multi-Pass rendering setup which will export After Effects and Digital Fusion project files.

Also, a type of iterative fPrime technology will be integrated along with the following advances:
1. Faster and cleaner Area Lights
2. Faster and cleaner GI
3. Faster Bones and a more robust and true setup process
4. Instancing will be prevalent in Layout and you will be able to grow objects over time because of a new parametric tool that is hooked up to extrusions/bevels.
5. All light types will offer Shadow Map, Raytrace and Area Light shadow types.
6. nGons
7. NonDestructive/Editable Splines
8. Fully configurable UI
9. Tighter Modeler and Layout Integration (it will feel closer to 1 application)
10. AO will be a multipass option
11. Overhauled HVs
12. Object/Axis Gizmo in modeler
13. Tearable Viewport windows so you can have as many as you want

Well...that's what I heard through the grapevine anyhoo. ;D


Nice rumors! how strong are your sources policarpo?
i just can't imagine it can be true.
with that kind of features, it must be lw9.x...

let's see...

lardbros
07-08-2005, 02:04 AM
Wow, if those "rumours" (which i imagine started life from your lips :D ) are true, everything Lightwave needs to compete successfully is there.

If only.........




if.... only........

colkai
07-08-2005, 02:10 AM
I hear 8.5 is gonna offer Parametric modeling tools along with a robust Multi-Pass rendering setup which will export After Effects and Digital Fusion project files
...........
Well...that's what I heard through the grapevine anyhoo. ;D

I love LW, I really do, and I have strong faith in the new team, but I can't believe they will incorprate all this and the hinted at NGons and true edges as hinted by Tess... surely not :eek:
If they do... well .... we got to PAARRTTAY! :dance: :jam:

policarpo
07-08-2005, 02:28 AM
Any news on 8.5??

In order to see the future, we must be willing to stare in to the abyss for answers. :l33t:

AO=Ambient Occlusion (built in as a Multi-Pass feature).

ufo3d
07-08-2005, 03:14 AM
I hear 8.5 is gonna offer Parametric modeling tools along with a robust Multi-Pass rendering setup which will export After Effects and Digital Fusion project files.

Also, a type of iterative fPrime technology will be integrated along with the following advances:
1. Faster and cleaner Area Lights
2. Faster and cleaner GI
3. Faster Bones and a more robust and true setup process
4. Instancing will be prevalent in Layout and you will be able to grow objects over time because of a new parametric tool that is hooked up to extrusions/bevels.
5. All light types will offer Shadow Map, Raytrace and Area Light shadow types.
6. nGons
7. NonDestructive/Editable Splines
8. Fully configurable UI
9. Tighter Modeler and Layout Integration (it will feel closer to 1 application)
10. AO will be a multipass option
11. Overhauled HVs
12. Object/Axis Gizmo in modeler
13. Tearable Viewport windows so you can have as many as you want

Well...that's what I heard through the grapevine anyhoo. ;D

Still no SSS :confused:

colkai
07-08-2005, 03:35 AM
Hehehe - just goes to show - you can offer the world and still ... it ain't enough :p

hrgiger
07-08-2005, 04:48 AM
[copied from one of my posts in another thread]

People sure are going into Siggraph time with some elevated expectations. That is the quickest road to dissapointmentville that I know of.

I'm approcahing it like most comic book movies. I go into it thinking it's probably going to suck big time and that way, if it is good, it's better than I expected and if it does actually suck, then I've lost nothing except two hours of my life. I'll write it off as a nap.

WilliamVaughan
07-08-2005, 06:24 AM
Your best bet is to wait for a feature list from NewTek. I've seen all sortsof lists pop up over the years and NewTek's lists are the ones I have always gone by.

mav3rick
07-08-2005, 06:43 AM
policarpo dont u use cinema4d ?

pauland
07-08-2005, 06:49 AM
I hear 8.5 is gonna offer

<snip>

Well...that's what I heard through the grapevine anyhoo. ;D

Does it help Newtek or us by coming out with such a list? At best it will detract from Newteks "Wow" factor at siggraph, at worst it might be totally misleading and Newtek gets it in the neck because some feature was "supposed" to be in the release.

I guess that if your grapevine friends really know so much, they shouldn't be talking about it. Why would anyone want to spoil the surprise?

I really don't understand why anyone that would know this information would actually post it. Kind of betrays a confidence somewhere along the line.

Perhaps Newtek should pull the list from the server?

Paul

robinson
07-08-2005, 07:13 AM
policarpo dont u use cinema4d ?

ditto !

Some people just can’t be quit after the switched applications. :tsktsk:

policarpo
07-08-2005, 07:30 AM
I was just sticking to the topic of the thread. I have no idea if it is legit or not, so don't shoot the messenger. Anyhoo...it's a good sounding list nonetheless and I am sure some of it is spot on.

I'll squeeze the grapevine a little tighter...but ya know how IRC is these days. Chatter chatter chatter... :jam:

Cheers.

Chris S. (Fez)
07-08-2005, 07:33 AM
[copied from one of my posts in another thread]

People sure are going into Siggraph time with some elevated expectations. That is the quickest road to dissapointmentville that I know of.

I'm approcahing it like most comic book movies. I go into it thinking it's probably going to suck big time and that way, if it is good, it's better than I expected and if it does actually suck, then I've lost nothing except two hours of my life. I'll write it off as a nap.

Quoted cause it's true and funny.

It would be great if that list were real but it seems a little loaded for a .5 release...

policarpo
07-08-2005, 08:53 AM
Yeah, that's probably the best attitude to take.

I think the 8.5 list is mostly BS...it's just chatter I have been picking up here and there on IRC and elsewhere. If it isn't legit, it's still a good feature list for future updates. :thumbsup: Maybe i'll add it to the feature request forum for giggles.

Chuck
07-08-2005, 09:07 AM
It's very clear that a lot of things are going around in the rumor mill (people do love to speculate! :) ); really, it is best to ignore all of it for any capacity except service as feature request lists. Any real news on future technologies for LightWave will come from NewTek at SIGGRAPH.

policarpo
07-08-2005, 09:14 AM
It's very clear that a lot of things are going around in the rumor mill (people do love to speculate! :) ); really, it is best to ignore all of it for any capacity except service as feature request lists. Any real news on future technologies for LightWave will come from NewTek at SIGGRAPH.


Yep...I went ahead and posted this same list in the Feature Requests section as a safety precaution.

I gotta lay off IRC...it's a weird jungle in there.

Cheers>

lardbros
07-08-2005, 09:15 AM
It's very clear that a lot of things are going around in the rumor mill (people do love to speculate! :) ); really, it is best to ignore all of it for any capacity except service as feature request lists.

Absolutely, this is me out for this thread... until the genuine lists get released. It wont be long i'm sure, so just hold on and no more chinese whispers i hope! :D

mav3rick
07-08-2005, 10:04 AM
policarpo it's so much to learn about C4D so my advice to you is stick more to it and expand your 4D knowledge and wait for siggraph to come.. maybe maxon announce some super update for you.

Nemoid
07-08-2005, 10:05 AM
Poli your list is cool, but personally i'd rely onto official Nt lists and announcements.
IRC channels are the worst place where to gather informations,
and looking for a Lw feature list now its to me quite like consulting tarots. :jam:

JML
07-08-2005, 10:07 AM
still though.. I would be ready to pay a thousand $ for an upgrade that would include those features ;)




1. Faster and cleaner Area Lights
2. Faster and cleaner GI
3. Faster Bones and a more robust and true setup process
4. Instancing will be prevalent in Layout and you will be able to grow objects over time because of a new parametric tool that is hooked up to extrusions/bevels.
5. All light types will offer Shadow Map, Raytrace and Area Light shadow types.
6. nGons
7. NonDestructive/Editable Splines
8. Fully configurable UI
9. Tighter Modeler and Layout Integration (it will feel closer to 1 application)
10. AO will be a multipass option
11. Overhauled HVs
12. Object/Axis Gizmo in modeler
13. Tearable Viewport windows so you can have as many as you want

jorbedo
07-10-2005, 03:40 AM
Feature Lists? is the smooth way to say we don't have anything ready yet, but expect this by the end of 2005 with a real realease date December 2006, the problem is that you have to pay now to get this exciting offer!.

-20 features (We don't offer any warranty that will work, maybe with some patches and 20 months of development and 3 patches).
************************************************** *****
Ok, no more sarcasm.

If you look at the industry maybe NewTek only have two more shoots to make some points (I think that they are not selling new packages as before, the company that I work for is switching to Maxon products and a few maya seats).

Maya and Softimage are canivalizing the market and Cinema grabbing some share from Lightwave and Max userbase.

The only thing that I want to see is NewTek kicking some as!!!es, don't screwt it this time guys, my wallet is waiting to upgrade from 7.5 to 9 (I hope so) or buying Maya, meanwhile learning Cinema4D.


!!!!FASTER RENDERING ENGINE, Ultra-Fast Baking options, Ultra fast everything!!!!. But if dreaming is not possible, just a better integretaded App and open enough to accept 3rd render engines.

mav3rick
07-10-2005, 04:06 AM
wish you luck with cinema jorbedo :) and to all of your teammates

cresshead
07-10-2005, 04:43 AM
my personal take on lightwave and other future development of the competitive apps...and switching...to other apps...

i think lightwave STILL has the best modeler tools out there closley followed by silo and 3ds max [not counting nurbs tools]

i added a second seat of lightwave so their market is growing with new sales definatley...also it the "app to buy" from the look of what my students have done over the last year or so...

i've also seen some xsi sales but not any output from the users since they bought it....

i upped to max 7.5 this year and went on subscription as ilooked around at cinema4d, maya and others to extend my toolset and decided that i loved lightwave and would have been mad to pass up on a second seat for such a cheap cost...also the "upkeep" of apps plays a large part in your buying desicion....

lightwave is cheap to keep current and there's 100's of free pluginns to extend it...

max is now [subscription] very cheap to keep current and i have access to a stunning particle system, robust cloth toolset, character studio4+, mental ray with a bunch of render nodes, lightscape capable renders, ies lighting [realworld] and some neat long standing easy workflows...

maya..cheap to get...expensive to maintain...lacking in basic tools/workflow
cinema4d..fractured program expensive to maintain and lacking in basic tools
xsi..difficult to learn and very lacking in essential tools/workflow also not extendable as max or lightwave

silo..looks great..and is VERY cheap
modo...not sure..see where it goes this year........
messiah..interesting but maestro/character studio fill my needs.
motion builder..no thanks!...yuk.

so lightwave has a great future, so does max..they both deliver good tools and are well balanced apps that add features that are simple to use but get you great results.

........8.5....?
looking forward to it! :thumbsup:

WilliamVaughan
07-10-2005, 06:23 PM
I think that they are not selling new packages as before,


If you saw mrs bates...then who's that buried out in greenlawn cemetery?

You might be suprised at how well sells are for LW :)

Doran
07-10-2005, 07:54 PM
My speculation :D
Lightwave 9 with an integrated (but separate in appearance modeller)


This defeats the main benefit of keeping them separate...

cresshead
07-11-2005, 01:37 AM
lightwave and max are still the biggest installed userbase in fact i thnk it's true to say that ALL the combined sales of maya, xsi, cinema, modo, houdini, hexagon, hash ect do not add upto the sales of commercial 3ds max seats....... :eek:

mind you a very healthy second is LIGHTWAVE...mostly due to it's fantastic high quality output, easy learning curve and being duo platform for free. :thumbsup:

maya is large..but waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay behind lightwave in actual sales..maybe they have a very unhealthy amount of 'hooky' or non legit versions out there but actual sales is still very low compared to 3dsmax or lightwave.

cinema is always going to struggle for sales as it doen't have a dominant market position except for european based print/dtp which it has a good share of that market.

xsi is...well, trying very hard to sell it's app but the 'users' numbers do ot equate the owners numbers as it's a rather steep learning curve even for the cutdown entry level version called xsi foundation...capable yes..easy to get good results...not so simple!

in the end a good way to judge a 3d app is their online community and the output from it.....

both lightwave and 3ds max are very healthy in that regard and give cheap options to maintain "current" something that xsi,cinema and particularly MAYA do not offer...

1.buying a 3d app is one thing......[gets put on the sold numbers list]

2.learning/using the 3d app is another [doesn't get on the sales list]

3.keeping the app current [doesn't boost the sales list but can cost the consumer alot of cash [maya, xsi or cinema]

Imatk
07-11-2005, 01:57 AM
Well, sales aside, from a standpoint of jobs... Maya right now seems to be the king. Lightwave is still used for many network tv jobs but for feature work, except for a select few, Maya dominates.

I'm all for Newtek selling more product, but if that product doesn't make its way to the production field (tv, film) then it doesn't do anyone looking to get a job in that field any good.

I'm now learning Maya for this very reason.

I know Lightwave is used in plenty of other applications, but I would hope that film and television are at the top of Newtek's priority list as far as install base.

Librarian
07-11-2005, 02:18 AM
maya is large..but waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay behind lightwave in actual sales..maybe they have a very unhealthy amount of 'hooky' or non legit versions out there but actual sales is still very low compared to 3dsmax or lightwave.
Where do you know? Do you have any proof for that?
I donīt think any companies would make their sales figures public.
Ask them, but theyīre not going to deliver exact information about sales.
And userbase or market share doesnīt necessarily mean that sales are equivalent.
Iīve read in several articles not long ago, that Maya and Max have the widest distribution, each of them more than LW.
Mustnīt be true.

Otherwise, I would like to see a list or something, need some more info about market share and sales of 3d Software for a homework.

Here in Europe e.g., where Max and Maya are dominant, LW has very little importance. Thereīre even people who work in the industry and have never heard of NewTek or LW. Itīs a shame :thumbsdow

digital verve
07-11-2005, 02:39 AM
This defeats the main benefit of keeping them separate...

Why? :confused:

It would actually add much more benefits if Layout and Modeller were more closer integrated.

Wouldn't it be great if we could easily animate points on our models in Layout. Select,drag and set key frame. Rather than having to do many going back and forths between modeller and layout using Endomorphs until the result looks right.

Animated extrudes and bevels. We could model in Camera view too.

There are so many more possibilities if Layout and Modeller were integrated. All this and more covered in many other threads. I think more advantages than not.

If designed well it can work without being cluttered and keeping the separate modeller looking style. For those of you who have dual monitors, LW could include decent dockable and tearable windows. Drag your modelling window into the other monitor, plus LW should remember the screen layout setting for next time.

This would not mean for slow program bloat either as some may think. I'm sure the talented developers at Newtek, as they continue to modernise LWs architecture, will get Modeller and Layout talking better somehow. ;)

operation
07-11-2005, 05:03 AM
I agree with Digital Verve.
Lightwave could be more powerfull if Layout and modeler is only one application.

Don't worry about the memory usage !! Most of us runs LW, after effect , photoshop.. at the same time ... I am not sure that using Lw (as one tool) will consume more memory than to use them seperate and I run both applications at the same time ( Layout&Modeler).. I have always to switch between 2 applics to correct a shape or adjust something. - there are things very diffcult to do with LW right now ie: Camera match and camera mapping or animated vertex object , growing extrusion etc...

Layout and Modeler share the same library (routine or Dlls) that means:
if you have modeler and Layout running, they certainlty use twice dlls ? the Hub is only there to save an object, test the change done and reload it in other appli (Modeler or Layout).

I think it's more powerfull to have one appli.

cheers

JML
07-11-2005, 07:19 AM
I agree with Digital Verve.
Lightwave could be more powerfull if Layout and modeler is only one application.



there is poll thread on newtek forum somewhere about if people prefer lightwave to be separated integrated.

the result was pretty much 50%-50%...

wacom
07-11-2005, 10:07 AM
Everyone knows I love LW and like to/want to contribute to this wonderful community, but lets not be blind here CressHead.

So you bought XSI and got burnt because you didn't want to take the time to learn a program that is stated many places as being very hard for MAX users to learn. XSI works very diffrently than other applications, and in some respects this is great, and in others it's not. (IE the shader tree can be really good for one thing, and a pain in tha *** for another- the same can be said of working in layers).

Lightwave is selling well, and for this I'm happy- I know I've personally converted at least two people who were Maya users over to it. Still your speculation that Softimage is having some issues with sales is faulty- after the new price structure came into play they have made more money than they have in a long time and their user base is growing steadily. They are fast becoming the #1 app for game production which is nothing to sneeze at.

You also stated incorrectly that there aren't many options for XSI in the way of plug-ins. Well first of all there are options, second of all many of them are free and LW users would have to pay a 3rd party for such things. We're talking about five diffrent ways to do SSS that are FREE. Free hair plugins, and some scripts that are really amazing. Did it also occur to you that maybe they don't NEED a crap load of plugins because the program already is fairly extensive? They don't like the bolt-ed on approach to making an application- which is how 80% of Max works BTW.

Besides- XSI encourages you getting your hands dirty with scripting- and the fact that you can use five diffrent scripting languages to do it in doesn't hurt either. The fact is it's almost silly for anyone NOT to own at least two 3D applications or consider it these days (for you it's MAX and LW CressHead). Just as long as one is LW that is...




xsi is...well, trying very hard to sell it's app but the 'users' numbers do ot equate the owners numbers as it's a rather steep learning curve even for the cutdown entry level version called xsi foundation...capable yes..easy to get good results...not so simple!

in the end a good way to judge a 3d app is their online community and the output from it.....

both lightwave and 3ds max are very healthy in that regard and give cheap options to maintain "current" something that xsi,cinema and particularly MAYA do not offer...
[maya, xsi or cinema]

Pavlov
07-11-2005, 11:43 AM
Nice rumors! how strong are your sources policarpo?
i just can't imagine it can be true.
with that kind of features, it must be lw9.x...

let's see...

hmmm.. you seem to have my same desires (i'd have spend much more on rendering, GI and lighting though).
BTW, this things alone would be more than what Newtek has done in last three years, so it's almost impossible IMHO.
And oh, i'd be glad to pay even more than 500 for these.

Paolo Zambrini

cresshead
07-11-2005, 12:25 PM
wacom, you are of course entitled to your opinion and views on how you percieve xsi in the current market place...we just differ on that perception..and no i'm not blind! :eek:

xsi has definatly had quite a surge in sales of mainly xsi foundation. my opionon is based on what i have seen that whilst there have been good sales figures there are equally poor "user figures" of xsi....owning it and using it are completly different aspects of how you can judge a sucessful application.
yes xsi is powerful and yes xsi is quite a different beast to that of maya/max/cinema and lightwave..and most probably that's the reason that many owners do not use it much in production.

many games studio's have added it their toolset yet ony a few have dared to jump to a 100% xsi production pipline...many are trying it out...and will evaluate it's usefulness in time.

as you can see by the job market in the games industry 3dsmax and maya dominate with the leftover % given to xsi and lightwave for such games as burnout [lw] or that xsi 3rd person game that softimage promote via their free version of xsi for modding.

lw has it's niche markets and i don't see them shrinking anytime soon as many of the "new" 3d apps fail to take into account the basics when they create their so called cutting edge apps...

i've said it before and yes i'll say it again...maya,xsi and cinema 4d simply lack one of their two legs...such a basic requirement to stand tall as a 3d app... as a proper scale tool and units system means that HUGE chunks of potential sales/usage cannot even begin...a non starter...unbelievable in such applications!

decimal inches anyone????....huh??wot! [maya, cinema4d]
no inches! of anytype..or meters or km! ..only generic units[xsi]...so stupid i still cannot grasp how come they created such a thing for sale!....try using it in production in a team of artists where one chap can decide the 1 unit is a cm..another that a unit is a foot....what a portential shambles that will make when they share their assets on a project!

that's just one example!...don't even get me started on such a weird idea that it would be just foolish to want/need a left AND right view in the viewport!

....ahh the heat sure does bring out the replies! 8~

cresshead
07-11-2005, 12:33 PM
as one who loves analogys....

quote:
Besides- XSI encourages you getting your hands dirty with scripting- and the fact that you can use five diffrent scripting languages to do it in doesn't hurt either.

Hmmm...let me see...analogy???

say i wanted a new home...i wouldn't expect a pile of bricks....i'd expect a home!

or as an artist i'm truly not interested in inventing or creating a chemical factory to make paint or brushes...or canvas!....
i just want to paint pretty pictures!

okay was a bit of fun!...we're now Waaaaaaaaaay off topic!

sorry! :o

wacom
07-11-2005, 01:22 PM
[QUOTE=cresshead]

decimal inches anyone????....huh??wot! [maya, cinema4d]
no inches! of anytype..or meters or km! ..only generic units[xsi]...so stupid i still cannot grasp how come they created such a thing for sale!....try using it in production in a team of artists where one chap can decide the 1 unit is a cm..another that a unit is a foot....what a portential shambles that will make when they share their assets on a project!
QUOTE]

That's because your English! :) It is strange, but in a production enviroment you just say that 1 unit is 1 meter and call it good. After that there are no problems. Resident Evil 4 didn't seem to have any scale issues- and many have said what a good job the team did with representing a sense of scale. But you have your point. Some would say LW being two seperate apps is a tad bit backward...but others find it useful (I do). It just depends on work flow.

Hey, we each still use LW, but we just don't agree on which convoluted app we want to use for other work! :)

If modeler had a history, NGons, and edges- and even beter UV tools it would remain tops for some time. But Layout needs even more work- NT has been doing a good job, but it seems they are having to work twice as hard since they have to A:) catch up in some areas and B:) surpass in others. I believe they will do it, they have to, and I look forward to it because LW has some of the most logical workflow for the projects I do.

hrgiger
07-11-2005, 02:31 PM
there is poll thread on newtek forum somewhere about if people prefer lightwave to be separated integrated.

the result was pretty much 50%-50%...

Hmmm, I don't think I particpated in that poll....

I want modeler and Layout to stay seperated. That means the results are probably more like 49.9% to 50.1%.

It's unanimous....we win.

operation
07-11-2005, 03:10 PM
At the begining, Lw was done by two original developers Alan Hasting and Stuart Ferguson.
Each developer had his tak (1 developper for the Modeler and the other for the Layout), that 's why we have 2 programs !!!

There are a lot of mistakes in LW ( one of them is to not share the same requesters between both applications for same data entries... and some plugins are not supported by the modeler but working in the layout ...etc... and many others differences...).

I think that's important to have only one chief ( Jay Roth (if I am wrong, please correct me ..)) to drive the developer in a good road map and be sure that the code is weel done. (hope you understand what I mean - I know that I didn't use the good words... )... but shortly: the lightwave "core" is badly coded ( during the period of Brad Peebler management).

As you can see , since the version 8.0 LW started with a new team ... and we can see the very good progress of the the product. I am ok to keep the good idea .

Can you explain us why is it good to keep both appli separated ? I can't understand the benefits? :confused:
thanks

Librarian
07-11-2005, 03:40 PM
Can you explain us why is it good to keep both appli separated ? I can't understand the benefits? :confused:
thanks
There is no. If the integration is done in a smart way, you can keep nearly all benefits of a seperated app in combination with all advantages of an integrated solution. E.g. something like a smart modeling mode. It should be even possible to have the modeling window on one monitor, and the layout part on the other.
I really, really canīt understand why people are against such a solution.
They wouldnīt lose anything (if itīs done right of course).

cresshead
07-11-2005, 03:50 PM
quote:-That's because your English!

Err no, that because the work i'm paid to create in a 3d program needs to have realworld measurement!

cricket book [3d illustrations]...all measurements in yards and inches.
soccer book [3d illustrations]...all measurements in yards and inches.
tennis book [3d illustrations]...all measurements in yards and inches.
rugby book [3d illustrations]...all measurements in yards and inches.

also note that exporting a model from lightwave into 3ds max the model comes in exactly the correct scale if i made it in lightwave in fett/inches and i import it into a 3dsmax scene set to inches...production friendly!

sports pitches and measurements of equipment are in imperial measurements by enlarge, though some have moved over to metric such as athletics, still having an option of either is pre requisit for most projects otherwise you'll be making a lot of conversion work for yourself...

as you can see my recent work in which i need to create 70-100 3d graphic illustrations per book are built around a world measured in imperial measurements...such a task while "doable" in xsi by creating a 3d ruler model
for myself would be annoying seeing as other full featured 3d apps that already exist such as lightwave and 3dsmax take into account that we might need such basic tools for a project...hey maybe if i learn jscript i could create a system of measurement or a dynamic ruler in xsi... :D

there it is!..the true reason i detest xsi so much!......... :rolleyes:

Myagi
07-11-2005, 03:50 PM
Hmmm, I don't think I particpated in that poll....

I want modeler and Layout to stay seperated. That means the results are probably more like 49.9% to 50.1%.

It's unanimous....we win.

Neither did I and I'm a hardcore separation fan, so add another 0.1 :)

To me, them being seperated is one of the big selling points. I'd really hate to see that change. If I want unified there are other apps to pick from. Having two smaller (less mem consuming and faster to start) apps, each focused on doing what they do the best they can (both in UI design and functionality), appeals more to me than the bloatedness of the 3dstudios and mayas out there.


just my two cents

Lightwolf
07-11-2005, 04:11 PM
To me, them being seperated is one of the big selling points. I'd really hate to see that change. If I want unified there are other apps to pick from. Having two smaller (less mem consuming and faster to start) apps, each focused on doing what they do the best they can (both in UI design and functionality), appeals more to me than the bloatedness of the 3dstudios and mayas out there.

Not that I want to start this discussion again...
Having a unified app does not mean that any of the fears you have would come true:
1) Unified LW would use less and not more ressources (since meshes and images for example would be shared).
2) Start up could be just as fast and even faster for the second "workspace" (since shared ressources are already started). And start up would be much faster than it currently is when you use the hub!
3) Only because Max and Maya have a bloated unified design doesn't mean that LW would have as well. Most ot their start up time comes from scanning plugins, not from loading another one or two megs of shared libraries. (Just look at the start up times of vanilla Photoshop as another example). Now if LW would scan for hundreds of plugins every time it starts, _then_ it would be slow, not because of loading one more module.
4) With decent workspace management you could even use LW _exactly_ the way you use it now and it would still run on a unified backbone (i.e. two separate windows etc...). Heck, you could (if that was planned for) plug in multiple instances of modeler into the same scene! And no more time and ressource wasting hub either (allthough I'd like to see the hub re-vamped to allow for cross-network sharing of assets and collaboration on scenes, but I'm dreaming here...).

Your current argument is like saying I don't want SSS ( or mico poly displacement) because it would slow down rendering and besides if I wanted it I could buy another app ;)

Cheers,
Mike - ever the optimist ;)

Lightwolf
07-11-2005, 04:16 PM
quote:-That's because your English!

Err no, that because the work i'm paid to create in a 3d program needs to have realworld measurement!
Yeah, but yards, feet and inches aren't real world measurements now, are they? *ducksforcover* ;)
Next thing you'll want the dynamics to support stone, pounds and ounces, fluid systems to work with pints and drams and temperatures in Fahrenheit ;)

_Then_ you tell use to only use our mouse on the left side of the keyboard too :p

Cheers,
Mike - who actually uses the mouse on the left side of his keyboard because he's left handed...

cresshead
07-11-2005, 04:29 PM
:thumbsup:

MY mouse IS on the left!..........left handed ya know!

just to 'overstate' the issue..i think it's quite funny that the newer 3d apps such as maya and xsi do not have some of the most basic needs catered for..you'd think that the older apps would be lacking and falling behind not the "cutting edge" ones!

as ever, from my perpsective in which i deal in measurements everyday NOT having a 'adaptable units system' in 3d program would drive me nuts! and waste sooooooooooooo much time.

as for weight and tempature...i surpose well yes i will demand proper units!...
infact we use them already in 3dsmax for lighting with ies lights in lux values and also with reactor the density and weight of an object....

if you want "real" in 3d you may as well use a "real" way to setup a scene, be that scale,speed, tempature or whatever....

addition...we already have such things for cloth in lightwave and 3dsmax..such as cotton, rubber etc..a realworld relationship makes our scenes easier to setup rather than some off world pie in the sky value system dreamed up by a laboratory tech who won't ever use the 3dapp for production...only a example scene.....

using a non related generic value just make a task harder to setup....which is nonsense and quite dumb! :hey:

Myagi
07-11-2005, 05:09 PM
Not that I want to start this discussion again...

I don't want to start anything either, just wanted state my opinion since I haven't done that on this issue before :)



Having a unified app does not mean that any of the fears you have would come true:
1) Unified LW would use less and not more ressources (since meshes and images for example would be shared).
2) Start up could be just as fast and even faster for the second "workspace" (since shared ressources are already started). And start up would be much faster than it currently is when you use the hub!

4) With decent workspace management you could even use LW _exactly_ the way you use it now and it would still run on a unified backbone (i.e. two separate windows etc...). Heck, you could (if that was planned for) plug in multiple instances of modeler into the same scene! And no more time and ressource wasting hub either (allthough I'd like to see the hub re-vamped to allow for cross-network sharing of assets and collaboration on scenes, but I'm dreaming here...).

I think I've seen this kind of argumentation before, but it's missing one huge point, it assumes that you have both modeler and layout running simultaneously a majority of the time.

However I don't, the majority of time is spent in modeler. Of course might not be true for everyone, but it was my personal opinion, I'm "fighting" for what I prefer myself ;) . I could imagine a lot of other game developers (that use LW) spend quite a bit of time in modeler alone.

I'm all for a more unified core (and a reworked API/SDK), but I still like two exe's. If it were to be unified I'd prefer it like you suggested though, that the modeler part is still a separate window, to keep it tidy and clean.

Gui Lo
07-11-2005, 06:10 PM
Why unify if it works the same as two apps?

Surely the whole app needs to be rewritten for it to be unified(takes time). This needs to go through a major alpha and beta test(takes time) and then there may well be bugs at the end(takes time). Do we really want the dev team to spend so much time?

IMHO I would rather see a continuation of the current apps and with data that comunicate with each other better. Then it will feel like a unified app.

;)

Librarian
07-11-2005, 06:59 PM
Not that I want to start this discussion again...
Having a unified app does not mean that any of the fears you have would come true:
1) Unified LW would use less and not more ressources (since meshes and images for example would be shared).
2) Start up could be just as fast and even faster for the second "workspace" (since shared ressources are already started). And start up would be much faster than it currently is when you use the hub!
3) Only because Max and Maya have a bloated unified design doesn't mean that LW would have as well. Most ot their start up time comes from scanning plugins, not from loading another one or two megs of shared libraries. (Just look at the start up times of vanilla Photoshop as another example). Now if LW would scan for hundreds of plugins every time it starts, _then_ it would be slow, not because of loading one more module.
4) With decent workspace management you could even use LW _exactly_ the way you use it now and it would still run on a unified backbone (i.e. two separate windows etc...). Heck, you could (if that was planned for) plug in multiple instances of modeler into the same scene! And no more time and ressource wasting hub either (allthough I'd like to see the hub re-vamped to allow for cross-network sharing of assets and collaboration on scenes, but I'm dreaming here...).

Well said, Lightwolf, well said :thumbsup:
I think someone should make this sticky :D

As long as it works, is stable and has all benefits of both ideologies (animatable modeling, shared memory, seperated interface for modeling etc.) , I donīt care how Newtekīs solution will look like :thumbsup:


Of course, progression needs time. You have to start sooner or later to give Lightwave a better foundation for future development, or itīll be harder and harder to compete.
Integration + seperation would please everybody and is the right way :thumbsup:
We shouldnīt forget that the separation is a major reason why some people donīt like Lightwave, feels like two seperated applications with even different handling.
Why LW if itīs not integrated and everything doesnīt work seamlessly together ? We have enough one-part solutions (Motionbuilder, Silo, Messiah, modo etc.) in my opinion. And most of them do as good or better than Lightwave.
But theyīre no complete solutions and lack seamless integration capabilities.
Thatīs where LW should score.
I would love to see a smart integration.

MonroePoteet
07-11-2005, 07:08 PM
I like the separate contexts of modeling and layout. In one state of mind, I'm a modeler, dealing with objects, physical things in a static world, independent entities, unique unto themselves. In the other, I'm a director, dealing with composition, lighting, motion, interaction, dynamics.

To me, they are separate ways of thinking about the basic components of animation. I think any of us can specialize to maximize our capability in any domain, like being a cinematographer, a gaffer, a property master, a director, a screen-writer, etc. To me, having a clear distinction between the two basic contexts is good, especially with easy methods of switching back and forth between contexts.

Just my opinion, though.

mTp

Steve McRae
07-11-2005, 07:59 PM
I beg for a unified app! The hub must die! ;)

Anunnaki
07-11-2005, 09:41 PM
Everyone is so focused that Siggraph will be a LightWave announcement. Let's not forget a while back Newtek announced the return of Inspire but have not heard about it since. My guess is Inspire will be shown at Siggraph and it will be a modeller/layout combined app that will point towards the future of Lightwave.

Vincent D. Brumback

ericsmith
07-11-2005, 11:02 PM
I think the best of both worlds would be to have one application, but keep the modules separate in workflow, as they are now. The hub is really the problem. If we could make changes to a model, and the changes would be instantaneously reflected in layout, it would make a lot of the current problems go away, ie. having a camera view while modeling, modifying endomorphs, etc.

Eric

wacom
07-11-2005, 11:20 PM
Don't forget animated modeling procedures etc.


I think the best of both worlds would be to have one application, but keep the modules separate in workflow, as they are now. The hub is really the problem. If we could make changes to a model, and the changes would be instantaneously reflected in layout, it would make a lot of the current problems go away, ie. having a camera view while modeling, modifying endomorphs, etc.

Eric

Lightwolf
07-12-2005, 02:02 AM
using a non related generic value just make a task harder to setup....which is nonsense and quite dumb! :hey:
Yeah, but feet, inches, stone, farenheit etc. _are_ non related generic values ;)

As a side note (to verge back to being more serious) even within LW the units are only relevant to what is displayed to the user. Internally it uses basically the metric system where 1.0 in floating point = 1m (as displayed to the user). Anything else is more or less converted within the custom numeric inputs etc... (this is also why you can do mixed numeric calculations within the input fields, i.e. "2ft + 600mm").

Cheers,
Mike

Lightwolf
07-12-2005, 02:07 AM
I think I've seen this kind of argumentation before, but it's missing one huge point, it assumes that you have both modeler and layout running simultaneously a majority of the time.
No, not really.


I'm all for a more unified core (and a reworked API/SDK), but I still like two exe's. If it were to be unified I'd prefer it like you suggested though, that the modeler part is still a separate window, to keep it tidy and clean.
There could be as many exe's as you like to be, they would do no more but load the "core" of LW (mesh handling, ui, graph & surface editor etc...) with different add on "modules" if you wish.
Heck, it could be one exe with command line switches that you set links to:
Lightwave.exe (load full package)
Lightwave.exe -a (load animation)
Lightwave.exe -m (load modeler)
Lightwave.exe -d (load dynamics)
Where the exe would be a couple of Kb.

And yes, another advantage would be a unified SDK (just imagine have the same set of options in openGL views when animating as well as when modelling). This would also make it a lot easier for the dev team to move forward. Only one code base to work on, not two (even if they're currently not 100% separate either).

Cheers,
Mike

Lightwolf
07-12-2005, 02:11 AM
I like the separate contexts of modeling and layout. In one state of mind, I'm a modeler, dealing with objects, physical things in a static world, independent entities, unique unto themselves. In the other, I'm a director, dealing with composition, lighting, motion, interaction, dynamics.

I guess this is where everyone differs. I deal with "projects" - and that can include anything from video/sound editing to 3D to compositing (then again, I'm very much a generalist).
A more unified approach is something I would greatly benefit from. If I look around at other tools, it is the unified ones that I find interesting as an alternative/extension to LW, not the stand alone apps.
As nice as Modo, messiah, Silo, etc. are, they are virtually useless in the kind of wokflows that I have.

Cheers,
Mike

Myagi
07-12-2005, 07:38 AM
No, not really.

There could be as many exe's as you like to be, they would do no more but load the "core" of LW (mesh handling, ui, graph & surface editor etc...) with different add on "modules" if you wish.
Heck, it could be one exe with command line switches that you set links to:
Lightwave.exe (load full package)
Lightwave.exe -a (load animation)
Lightwave.exe -m (load modeler)
Lightwave.exe -d (load dynamics)
Where the exe would be a couple of Kb.


The important part of my argument was that the code and resources that are unique to the modeler and unique to layout are separated somewhere (and can be loaded independently), whether that be at the exe or module/dll level doesn't matter to me.

I think the definition of unified is differing a bit between people, which causes confusion and arguments where there are none :)

I'll try to put my opinion about "unified" this way instead:

The kind of unified I would not prefer is

A. just one single window for all functionality (3DS, Maya etc.)
B. both "programs" loaded at the same time always (ie. both of their unique code/resources always loaded simultaneously)

(A. being the one I dislike the most)


That was all I meant to say, without diving into technical details :)

Steve McRae
07-12-2005, 07:58 AM
well something that would go along way with me is being able to save surface settings into the open models.

It is an absolute pain with heavy scenes to use the hub to save new texture settings in modeler.

Nemoid
07-12-2005, 08:45 AM
I agree totally. can you guys imagine the modeler tools and selection possibilities for animation ?
i do, and it would be wonderful.and powerful compared to other apps.
rigging system would benefit as well, because you could paint weight maps both in layout or modeler: no diffrence.
you could have all advantages of layout in modeler and vice versa IF you want, and so, use the app into several ways. as it is now or beyond. :)
along with this you wuold have better memory managenment and less resources used by the app, no data exchange between 2 apps too.

all this could be coupled with the possibility to build custom layout and loading tools you want where you want so that yoou could build several kinda UI at your hearth content, suitable for your needs


Not that I want to start this discussion again...
Having a unified app does not mean that any of the fears you have would come true:
1) Unified LW would use less and not more ressources (since meshes and images for example would be shared).
2) Start up could be just as fast and even faster for the second "workspace" (since shared ressources are already started). And start up would be much faster than it currently is when you use the hub!
3) Only because Max and Maya have a bloated unified design doesn't mean that LW would have as well. Most ot their start up time comes from scanning plugins, not from loading another one or two megs of shared libraries. (Just look at the start up times of vanilla Photoshop as another example). Now if LW would scan for hundreds of plugins every time it starts, _then_ it would be slow, not because of loading one more module.
4) With decent workspace management you could even use LW _exactly_ the way you use it now and it would still run on a unified backbone (i.e. two separate windows etc...). Heck, you could (if that was planned for) plug in multiple instances of modeler into the same scene! And no more time and ressource wasting hub either (allthough I'd like to see the hub re-vamped to allow for cross-network sharing of assets and collaboration on scenes, but I'm dreaming here...).

Your current argument is like saying I don't want SSS ( or mico poly displacement) because it would slow down rendering and besides if I wanted it I could buy another app ;)

Cheers,
Mike - ever the optimist ;)

Dodgy
07-12-2005, 09:05 AM
well something that would go along way with me is being able to save surface settings into the open models.

It is an absolute pain with heavy scenes to use the hub to save new texture settings in modeler.


Do you mean you're modifying them in layout, then you're going to modeler to save the object?? You can save objects in both Modeler and Layout....

MonroePoteet
07-12-2005, 10:49 AM
I guess this is where everyone differs. I deal with "projects" - and that can include anything from video/sound editing to 3D to compositing (then again, I'm very much a generalist).

Yes, I, too, am a generalist, but I don't want LW Layout to start trying to implement high-end compositing capabilities, or be involved in managing my synthesizer MIDI tracks, or try to implement PhotoPaint's drawing capabilities, to site a few examples. Choosing the right tool for the right job can make or break a project. I've never been a fan of the "Swiss Army Knife" approach to toolsets - one tool with 10,000 blades that doesn't do any one thing very well. A SAK is a nice, general-purpose tool, but it's not what you'd use to build a house. If you want to saw wood, you get a circular saw.

Obviously, the transitions between the various tools is critical as well: the thread on RLA incompatibility is a good example. But, having tools which are focused on the particular jobs lets them perfect their internal workflow and capabilities, and then perfecting the interactions and interfaces between these job-specific tools makes the whole project workflow mesh.

To summarize: I'd prefer a set of specific tools for specific jobs, with a well-defined, "perfected" inter-tool workflow.

Again, just my opinion.

mTp

Lightwolf
07-12-2005, 12:00 PM
To summarize: I'd prefer a set of specific tools for specific jobs, with a well-defined, "perfected" inter-tool workflow.

Absolutely. But some things just need to be closer than they really are. Your example of RPF/RLA is quite good actually, since it shows what can happen if there is no inter-tool workflow. RPF/RLA in combination with Max is bad enough and with LW (which doesn't and can't support all the features) a royal pain.

However, splitting up modelling and animating goes way to far...

On the other side... XSI with layered rendering and integrated (node based) compositing can pack quite a punch...

Cheers,
Mike

theo
07-12-2005, 01:08 PM
I frankly could care less whether something is integrated or not as long as I can effeciently and effectively create.

In the long run though integration does seem to expedite a majority of processes. So it is in this sense I would probably have to agree with the integrationists.

I imagine that there would be some remarkable and yet-to-be-discovered concepts that would occur as a result of integrating Layout and Modeller.

natha1
07-13-2005, 11:52 AM
I agree that there are good benefits to putting Layout and Modeler together into one app. However, I think the cliche "if it ain't broke don't fix it" kind of applies here. I know somebody is going to reply with "but, but, but"... but, the truth is, running a few extra dll's takes up how many K of memory?

I think that putting them together would add even more bugs and make the program crash even more than it does with my already large scenes. I also like to have just one copy of the program running (IE. LightWave, LightWave copy 1, etc...). And when I have something that takes 30 min to render I like to use Modeler in the meantime.

My point is this, the amount of memory that it's going to save is not even close to significant enough for two reasons:

A) If you work by yourself there's probably not anything you've done that takes up more than a gig of RAM (excluding when we want to see if our system can handle a render subpatch level of 30 on the 50 objects in our scene)

B) If your working with a development team you're probably using more of one or the other independantly anyway (excluding test renders)

Another point is this... Apple, Linux, and eventually, Windows (which is always behind the power curve) all have a 64 bit OS out. Memory is just going to increase and get cheaper.


Finally, I just think that it will make more bugs and make LightWave less stable to throw the programs together. If it was one app from the start, then, it would probably be great. I just don't think that the benefits outweigh the costs. A lot of people who use LightWave probably don't have a lot of experience with application programming, you can't just merge two applications together like you can merge geometry using the bridge tool. It's an extremely tedious process that will probably take a couple of months. And instead of getting "more useful" improvements to Layout and Modeler, you'll be able to keyframe a translated point in layout (which you could do in Modeler and make it "reuseable" for another scene). :)


If NewTek decides that it's beneficial, I'll more than likely just go with the flow, but, if that's the only major difference and it's an update I'll have to pay for, I'll pass. Otherwise, cool! I'll download it ASAP.


Sincerely,
Nathan Warden

Lightwolf
07-13-2005, 12:11 PM
My point is this, the amount of memory that it's going to save is not even close to significant enough for two reasons:
You forgot something: assets. Every image and mesh you load and work with is currently duplicated in memory (if you use it in modeler and layout). And knowing how many problems LW already has with medium sized images (i.e. 4K) ... 64bit is going to help, but, to be honest, a bit overkill.

Just as a quick example: You have an object in layout with tons of high res image maps, and now you just want to tweak the modelling a bit. F12 ... wait ... wait .... wait ... wait ... Tweak a bit. Save. Wait ... wait ... wait ... . You know what I mean ;)

Cheers,
Mike

theo
07-13-2005, 12:57 PM
I agree that there are good benefits to putting Layout and Modeler together into one app. However, I think the cliche "if it ain't broke don't fix it" kind of applies here. I know somebody is going to reply with "but, but, but"... but, the truth is, running a few extra dll's takes up how many K of memory?

....but, but, but- Man I know I ain't the only one here who has days where the hub essentially, kinda, sorta, bascially, sucks.


I think that putting them together would add even more bugs and make the program crash even more than it does with my already large scenes. I also like to have just one copy of the program running (IE. LightWave, LightWave copy 1, etc...). And when I have something that takes 30 min to render I like to use Modeler in the meantime.

Doubtful. Possibly. Maybe. This is strictly a "think".


My point is this, the amount of memory that it's going to save is not even close to significant enough for two reasons:

A) If you work by yourself there's probably not anything you've done that takes up more than a gig of RAM (excluding when we want to see if our system can handle a render subpatch level of 30 on the 50 objects in our scene)

B) If your working with a development team you're probably using more of one or the other independantly anyway (excluding test renders)

Another point is this... Apple, Linux, and eventually, Windows (which is always behind the power curve) all have a 64 bit OS out. Memory is just going to increase and get cheaper.

Memory? Who would want integration or non-integration simply based on memory anyways. This is a non-issue. I have enough memory to power Toledo so what do I care anyways?


If NewTek decides that it's beneficial, I'll more than likely just go with the flow, but, if that's the only major difference and it's an update I'll have to pay for, I'll pass. Otherwise, cool! I'll download it ASAP.

Oh knock it off- you'll be slapping your plastic on the table as fast as you can if this puppy ever hits hard drives.

natha1
07-13-2005, 01:03 PM
Hey LightWolf:

You're right, I agree. And for anybody who doesn't have much RAM in their system (like 256 MB or so). I'm just saying, for me, it doesn't benefit me enough to worry about it. :)

But, if NewTek put a free update out with the programs merged I'd jump all over it. :thumbsup:

One more point is (sorry if this has already been stated): Where would you put all of the tools? You'd basically have to switch between two interfaces or modes anyway. Either that or have a super confusing set of tools. IE. is this tool to translate my object in my scene or is it to translate my object in it's own space? Why are my textures not resizing directly with my object?... Oh, I'm in Modeler mode? I think this is the major difference between the learning curve of LW and many other apps. You know whether you're in object space or scene space all of the time.

On the other hand... I think that probably half of my crashes and a few of my frustrations are directly related to the Hub in some way. Trust me when I say I think one program is probably better as far as the Hub goes. I just don't want to deal with that being the one major feature of an upgrade that I have to pay for (because it more than likely will be if they do). :(

One more upside to not having two apps is I could set up more than one content directory by having copies of the LightWave app on my computer. The Hub always resets the directory on me when I have different copies running even despite changing the location of preferences per app.

I think that this subject could be argued forever. I could probably argue it with myself and get nowhere. When it all comes down, it's NewTek's final decision and that will make or break some people or LW.

When it comes to final render time for most people and companies I don't think that either one or two program setup really matters very much at all.

Nathan Warden :)

JML
07-13-2005, 01:05 PM
why would newtek work on something like that when 50% of the newtek community like seperated and 50% integrated?

they probably rather put their energy on tools that 100% of the community will use instead.

natha1
07-13-2005, 01:10 PM
Now that's something I'll slap my plastic on the table for! :thumbsup:

Lightwolf
07-13-2005, 01:32 PM
why would newtek work on something like that when 50% of the newtek community like seperated and 50% integrated?

they probably rather put their energy on tools that 100% of the community will use instead.
Because it will make life easier for them in the long run?
...and since when have they focused on tools that 100% of the community uses ? (like my old nemesis IKB ;) ).
Oh, and how many people complain about the hub not working?
And, even if 50% of the community works in separated modes doesn't mean they won't profit from it...
Cheers,
Mike

WizCraker
07-13-2005, 01:51 PM
Hmmm, I don't think I particpated in that poll....

I want modeler and Layout to stay seperated. That means the results are probably more like 49.9% to 50.1%.

It's unanimous....we win.

I never see the polls.

I would would want it merged into one app. back to 50-50.

WizCraker
07-13-2005, 02:04 PM
quote:-That's because your English!

Err no, that because the work i'm paid to create in a 3d program needs to have realworld measurement!

cricket book [3d illustrations]...all measurements in yards and inches.
soccer book [3d illustrations]...all measurements in yards and inches.
tennis book [3d illustrations]...all measurements in yards and inches.
rugby book [3d illustrations]...all measurements in yards and inches.

also note that exporting a model from lightwave into 3ds max the model comes in exactly the correct scale if i made it in lightwave in fett/inches and i import it into a 3dsmax scene set to inches...production friendly!

sports pitches and measurements of equipment are in imperial measurements by enlarge, though some have moved over to metric such as athletics, still having an option of either is pre requisit for most projects otherwise you'll be making a lot of conversion work for yourself...

as you can see my recent work in which i need to create 70-100 3d graphic illustrations per book are built around a world measured in imperial measurements...such a task while "doable" in xsi by creating a 3d ruler model
for myself would be annoying seeing as other full featured 3d apps that already exist such as lightwave and 3dsmax take into account that we might need such basic tools for a project...hey maybe if i learn jscript i could create a system of measurement or a dynamic ruler in xsi... :D

there it is!..the true reason i detest xsi so much!......... :rolleyes:


Softimage has a formula for makeing object for real world size. 1 grid unit = 10 cm. That is not that hard to figure out for example that a 3 meter long object is 300 cm which i would expect from using the formula provided by Softimage would be 30 units.

That seems simple enough to me.

JML
07-13-2005, 02:43 PM
Nervermind ,

polls are :

seperated : 52.26%
Integrated : 47.74%

:D

http://vbulletin.newtek.com/showthread.php?t=28492

so pretty much 50/50

Pavlov
07-13-2005, 03:35 PM
Nervermind ,

polls are :

seperated : 52.26%
Integrated : 47.74%

:D

http://vbulletin.newtek.com/showthread.php?t=28492

so pretty much 50/50

I'd like to know what "separated" people use LW for, and how long have they been using LW.
It's impossible to control, i know, but a more "weighted" poll should count 2x for votes of people who make a living with Lw, and 1x for votes of hobby-people. Experience does matters, in that poll six month user's vote has same weight of 10 years one's.

Ah.. i'm for integration, forgot to mention ;)

Paolo Zambrini

Dodgy
07-13-2005, 03:38 PM
Softimage has a formula for makeing object for real world size. 1 grid unit = 10 cm. That is not that hard to figure out for example that a 3 meter long object is 300 cm which i would expect from using the formula provided by Softimage would be 30 units.

That seems simple enough to me.

1=10cm? If that's what they recommend I'd say that was fairly rubbish.. I'd tend to take 1 unit as being 1m, so immediately if I built anything it'd be too small for someone else. With LW's system there's no ambiguity.

I like the LW unit system, in the UK we're used to imperial units, so an average man is 6 feet, etc. I was brought up with metric and I still think in this way for everyday things. Why are we even arguing about this? It's in, are they going to take it out? One of my favourite things is the grid system in LW, especially in modeller.Maya has a fixed grid which is all but useless, you have to think, okay am I in cm or m? I want to snap to grid but not this big grid so I'll have to change the settings... faff faff faff! With LW the grid changes as you zoom in and out (I'd like to see that done in Layout please :), if you want to snap to a finer grid, just zoom in a couple of times.. Simple.

On the subject, I want my Layout grid snap back. Objects used to snap to 10th's (or something along those lines) of the grid in layout , I'm sure of it, but somewhere along the way they dropped it. Now placing precisely is a pain...

JML
07-13-2005, 04:15 PM
I'd like to know what "separated" people use LW for, and how long have they been using LW.
It's impossible to control, i know, but a more "weighted" poll should count 2x for votes of people who make a living with Lw, and 1x for votes of hobby-people. Experience does matters, in that poll six month user's vote has same weight of 10 years one's.
Ah.. i'm for integration, forgot to mention ;)

Paolo Zambrini

well I use lightwave at work, and I'm for seperated :)

I think it depends mostly of the kind of work you do..
we do architectural render and have everytime big scenes, and when we do changes into one of the building for example,
it's easier to, in modeller, select the model we want and change it.
instead of doing it in integrated and having all other buildings slowing down opengl and hiding the object you want to work on..

wacom
07-13-2005, 05:14 PM
well I use lightwave at work, and I'm for seperated :)

I think it depends mostly of the kind of work you do..
we do architectural render and have everytime big scenes, and when we do changes into one of the building for example,
it's easier to, in modeller, select the model we want and change it.
instead of doing it in integrated and having all other buildings slowing down opengl and hiding the object you want to work on..

Many applications just use reference models or instances to deal with this. So I can see how this would be a problem under the current way LW works, but if things were handled more like other applications it wouldn't be a issue.

dilaima
07-13-2005, 05:22 PM
all peoples have fear of separation VS integration for some reasons related to lightwave bugs itself. eg. JML said that he prefer to do modification to his arch model in modeler for not going into the slow of layout opengl, but that's not a true reason, why don't we try to think that they have to enhance the opengl in both layout and modeler so that it can handle the same poly scene.
and why we have fear with integration?
simple. cause when we say integration, most of peoples that are against, imagine that integration mean "breaking the characteristic and the ideology of lightwave", but actualy that is totaly false, users start to think that integration mean that we will have all modeler and layout buttons and tabs in the same layout, and that u will have one window, that can't be dragged and splitted into 2 monitors.

but peoples let's take a break and think about it in a relaxed way, why don't we see that integration is a coding and behind scenes matter that will never affect ur interface and will keep ur modeler alone and lightwave alone into 2 different interfaces, the only diferent thing that u can use ur modeler tools to affect what's going along the timeline in layout, as you can model in modeler using the camera view, and probably while projecting light gel.....and seeing sprite hypervoxels.... nothing will change , but hub will die, integrated tools will survive and redundent requestor and panels will disappear, the way that will make lightwave faster and faster in update scene change, no need to read images and models each time you swap btw modeler and layout.

unfortunatly this is the way LUX team is going to manage and build their new application, starting by modo module, everything will be integrated and separated at the same time, you can put modeler on a screen, renderer on the other, animation on the third.....but what u make in any module will be already reflected in the other, and buttons in each one is different than the other, and i don't think that LUX team or management is better than lightwave developpers or newtek manageres, but LUX learned from the accidental fault that happened with them in the past with lightwave product, that camed to life by chance that joined Alan & Stuart together to join their 2 application under one roof, so they decided to do it now on the right way with the same ideology and success way that users prefer and like.
And believe me all, when lightwave developpers comes to open totally the SDK and find the shortest way to find a smart integration for lightwave, we will see it done, cause separation wasn't a plan, it was a fact and something existing(they were originally 2 different applications) but time and users approoved that separation in a way is very good to go with, but is slowing down and decreasing flexibility and control in other way, so let's go for the new age and new way.

sorry if i talked too much :lwicon:

Dodgy
07-13-2005, 05:49 PM
That is the main reason I like LW over other apps. By clicking one button you go to an environment in which everything is set up for modelling one object, and back to one in which everything is setup for animation.

Now if you had a package in which with one click of a button:

1)Changes the menus
2)changes the hotkeys (so you can different hotkeys for different modes)
3)hides/unhides geometry to the last state you had it when in that mode.
4)rearranges the layout of windows etc
5) turns on and off different types of modifications (like bones etc)

Then that would be very cool :) You could even set up your own modes, so you could have point editing with bone deformation for jointmorphs as a separate mode to the current layout and modeller modes.

Maya only changes the menus.
Cinema4d changes the menus and window layouts.

Pavlov
07-13-2005, 06:39 PM
well I use lightwave at work, and I'm for seperated :)

I think it depends mostly of the kind of work you do..
we do architectural render and have everytime big scenes, and when we do changes into one of the building for example,
it's easier to, in modeller, select the model we want and change it.
instead of doing it in integrated and having all other buildings slowing down opengl and hiding the object you want to work on..

Well it's the same i do... probably it's all in how you work, but more often than not a better integration would save lot of time. Think when you need to change some poly's surface... open modeler, import mammoth objs, do the job, save and NOT close because modeler crashes when closing big objs, you know... then back to layout. Wont you like more straight selection tools in layout ?
From now to Christmas 2007, i could mention thousand of cases where we're forced and used to adopt funny/ridiculous work methods to get a task done.
3-4 years ago i'd have done this, not now... priorities have changed with time; while it would keep several releases to get merging done (it would really need a god-blessed rewrite, i think we wont see it in a near future), it's more necessary and doable a deep, critical revamp of the whole lighting/rendering system. We're so behind times and competitors in this area that i wont even start a list of issues to be adressed, but i hope to see this before than all other things.

Paolo Zambrini

WizCraker
07-13-2005, 07:31 PM
...ust to 'overstate' the issue..i think it's quite funny that the newer 3d apps such as maya and xsi do not have some of the most basic needs catered for.....

Apparently you don't know your 3D history very well to say that Maya and Softimage are new. NewTek, Softimage, Alias [and Wavefront, can't forget them] were all founded about 2-3 years from each other. Alias and Wavefront were the two companies that had something the earliest.

NewTek

1985 NewTek is founded then introduced its first product, DigiView, in 1986.

1990 shipped the Amiga Video Toaster. Lightwave 3D 1.0 was part of VT.

1994 Lightwave 3D 3.5, first stand alone version for Amiga. Also the Flyer was introduced this same year.

1995 Lightwave 3D 4.0, for Amiga and the first version for Intel PCs [First standalone is fuzzy NewTek lists it as 1995 but there are other places that have 3.5 as the first standalone]. Then Later that year Lightwave 3D 5.0 for Intel, SGI, DEC Alpha, Macintosh, and last version for Amiga.

1997 Lightwave 3D 5.5, 1998 Lightwave 3D 5.6, 2000 Lightwave 3D 6.0, 2001 Lightwave 3D 6.5, 2002 Lightwave 3D 7.0 and 7.5.

2004 LightWave [8] was Shipped.

Softimage

Softimage was founded in 1986 and ther first Softimage Creative Enviroment 1.0 went public in 1988.

1994 Softimage merges with Microsoft Corporation and later Creative Environment 2.65 released.

1995 SOFTIMAGE|3D version 3.0 released, notice the name changed but the version kept on going from Creative Enviroment.

1998 SOFTIMAGE|3D v. 3.8 ships, then in 2000 SOFTIMAGE|XSI begins shipping.

2002 Softimage releases the SOFTIMAGE|XSI Experience, a no-cost educational software and training kit. and SOFTIMAGE|3D v.4.0 begins shipping

Alias

Alias was founded in 1983 and had their first version at the end of the same year. Wavefront was founded in 1984 and had its first mark in the industry that year as well had Preview to meet the needs of the animators, used on the T.V. Series Knight Rider. [They merged later in life]

After Alias [the software for creating 3D, which was used in The Abyss, which is hailed by the film industry to be one of the most technologically advanced and difficult motion pictures ever filmed.] there was Studio and PowerAnimator in 1990. In 1992 AutoStudio is released.

In 1993 Alias starts the development of a new entertainment software, later known as Maya. [Doesn't sound to new to me, 12 years old from first development with a long history of proven technology]

On February 7, 1995, Wavefront Technologies, Inc., Silicon Graphics, Inc. and Alias Research, Inc. announce that they have entered into definitive merger agreements. The new company's mission is to focus on developing the world's most advanced tools for the creation of digital content. "We created digital skin, then [Alias] did; now they've created digital hair and we're working on digital clothing. With both of us working together, we can attack the bigger technical problems instead of duplicating work," says Mark Sylvester, co-founder of Wavefront.

1998 - Alias|Wavefront's introduces its new 3D flagship product Maya. [remember by this time Maya has been 5 years in development]

and from 1999-2005 you should no the development track for Maya and Studio Tools.

Snosrap
07-13-2005, 10:04 PM
I'd like to know what "separated" people use LW for, and how long have they been using LW.
It's impossible to control, i know, but a more "weighted" poll should count 2x for votes of people who make a living with Lw, and 1x for votes of hobby-people. Experience does matters, in that poll six month user's vote has same weight of 10 years one's.

Ah.. i'm for integration, forgot to mention ;)

Paolo Zambrini


I've been using LW professionally since version 5.5. I liked it separated then, and like it now. I always hear in the forums that people hate the hub and turn it off etc. I for one have never had any complaints with it, I like it. I work in a design studio and am one of 4 full-time designers using LW 8 all day. We model while Layout renders, is that even possible with other apps? Bottom line for us is if we can't be modeling and rendering at the same time on the same PC we're wasting time. So if Newtek ever goes to a integrated system, we would certainly not upgrade, unless it was shown that modeling and rendering could take place at the same time. Is it possible that two instances of an integrated app be opened at the same time to accomplish this?

Thanks
Snos

wacom
07-13-2005, 10:31 PM
We model while Layout renders, is that even possible with other apps?

Well...if we had batch rendering and an easier nodal system then we'd have what many others do. ScreamerNet can be setup this way, but not as easily as some other apps. In fact you might want to look into something like Mule since i think it would allow you to use Layout too- and would just send it to be rendered on SN. So to answer you question- yes, just in diffrent formats.
Some even allow clusters...

Lightwolf
07-14-2005, 02:36 AM
I think it depends mostly of the kind of work you do..
we do architectural render and have everytime big scenes, and when we do changes into one of the building for example,
it's easier to, in modeller, select the model we want and change it.
instead of doing it in integrated and having all other buildings slowing down opengl and hiding the object you want to work on..
But that is an implementation problem, not an integration problem...
Imagine this: You select a mesh in Layout, click on "Edit", "Model" whatever and _instantly_ the menu changes, all other objects are hidden and you're in a modelling environment. How much faster could it be?
Hechk, it would even allow you to model "in context" of your scene if so desired, or in world coordinates to match something up to your scenery etc...

Cheers,
Mike

Lightwolf
07-14-2005, 02:37 AM
Now if you had a package in which with one click of a button:

1)Changes the menus
2)changes the hotkeys (so you can different hotkeys for different modes)
3)hides/unhides geometry to the last state you had it when in that mode.
4)rearranges the layout of windows etc
5) turns on and off different types of modifications (like bones etc)

Then that would be very cool :)
Bingo, that is exactly the point. And you could go beyond simple animation and modelling "workspaces" too.

Cheers,
Mike

Lightwolf
07-14-2005, 02:42 AM
We model while Layout renders, is that even possible with other apps?
That isn't possible in LW either if you use the hub and render on the insance of layout connected to modeler ... especially if you press F12 in between... *ouch*.
We model while we render on the farm, or use a simple local batch (which is more efficient anyhow). Some other apps do allow you to render in the background while working, C4D being an example here.
And even in the integrated world it should be possible to open a second instance of the complete app. A simple "render as separate task in background", basically sending a scene off to a local render queue would be more useful in your case though... imho.
Cheers,
Mike

Dodgy
07-14-2005, 03:27 AM
Apparently you don't know your 3D history very well to say that Maya and Softimage are new. NewTek, Softimage, Alias [and Wavefront, can't forget them] were all founded about 2-3 years from each other. Alias and Wavefront were the two companies that had something the earliest.


1998 SOFTIMAGE|3D v. 3.8 ships, then in 2000 SOFTIMAGE|XSI begins shipping.

Alias

In 1993 Alias starts the development of a new entertainment software, later known as Maya. [Doesn't sound to new to me, 12 years old from first development with a long history of proven technology]

1998 - Alias|Wavefront's introduces its new 3D flagship product Maya. [remember by this time Maya has been 5 years in development]

and from 1999-2005 you should no the development track for Maya and Studio Tools.

Shouldn't this mean they have less excuse for lacking in basic features? After all they had 5 YEARS to think it out. It always amazes me that Maya is on version 7 now and certain workflows and basic tools are implemented or implemented badly when with Maya they had a chance to rebuild everything from the ground up and it's still so lacking in some respects. And they get away with it. But then maybe I'm not as in love with maya as a lot of people seem to be.

Dodgy
07-14-2005, 03:29 AM
Bingo, that is exactly the point. And you could go beyond simple animation and modelling "workspaces" too.

Cheers,
Mike


Yeah, but that's gonna take time ;)

Lightwolf
07-14-2005, 03:34 AM
Yeah, but that's gonna take time ;)
That's the caveat with progress ... you can't have it for free. Then again, any development takes time and even more so if you want to create something future proof (guess why so many other developers took a long time when they re-designed their apps? The only one I can think of that progressively re-designed (i.e. bit by bit, release by release) is C4D, anybody else just went into hybernation for a couple of years).
I don't think the NT dev team has the luxury of going into hybernation, but they will have to make that step sooner or later. Let's just hope they have the time to do it right.

Cheers,
Mike

SCS5
07-14-2005, 06:22 AM
Again to all the seperatists, just add a modeler tools tab to layout that would add many of the modeler tools to Layout, but would make them animatable! It would just open a new set of tools down the left side of Layout like hitting any other tab in Layout. No more cluttered than it is now, but 10 times more powerfull.This way you could have em seperate, but together! The seperation is what is holding Lightwave back! I said it before, and I'll say it again, how many times have you heard someone say I modeled this in Maya, but I animated it in Lightwave......NEVER! That's my point. Let's catch up with the rest of the world!

Here's link to a previous discussion on the topic.

ahttp://vbulletin.newtek.com/showthread.php?t=36771&highlight=scs5

jeffb
07-14-2005, 06:39 AM
I have one more thing to add to this discussion. As I have taught both Maya and Lightwave, I've found that (ancedotal evidence only) the majority of students preferred an integrated interface. I would have thought students would prefer a simpler environment; one to just model in. That is true until animation, lighting, and scene composition begins. Then the clumsiness of the hub as well as switching back and forth just adds to the confusion of learning.
Now I realize that some can point to other experiences, I'm just relating here what I've heard and experienced.
Why is this important? Its important because attracting and keeping a large user base is what allows Lightwave (or any software) to grow and be used commerically. (And allow us Lightwave users to get work.)
PS: In case its not clear my bias is towards integration.

digital verve
07-14-2005, 06:53 AM
Integration could open up so many options.

I would love to animate text this way in Layout using the splinequide tool from modeller.

ftp://ftp.newtek.com/pub/LightWave/Tutorials/Vidz/textsplineguide.mov

I believe integration would offer up so many workflow benefits.

If the modelling screens are dockable/tearable windows, then it could be designed so you can still model in one window while rendering is happening in another window. :)

Steve McRae
07-14-2005, 07:06 AM
Bottom line for us is if we can't be modeling and rendering at the same time on the same PC we're wasting time. So if Newtek ever goes to a integrated system, we would certainly not upgrade, unless it was shown that modeling and rendering could take place at the same time. Is it possible that two instances of an integrated app be opened at the same time to accomplish this?

Thanks
Snos

Yes, you can render Maya stuff from the command line and I'm sure XSI would allow this to.

It would be interesting to see a break down of the separatists to see how many of them actually have used anything other than LW. I would be willing to bet that a large percentange of them have not and therefor have trouble seeing the benefits.

Gui Lo
07-14-2005, 07:08 AM
It is not really a integrate or separate matter. More and better communication is needed between the apps. The two solutions given can both look like each other.

I like the progress the Dev team are doing and this matter will be addressed

Maybe at Siggraph we will hear NT announce that they are closing the Lightwave doors for a couple of years to concentrate on a totally new version.

Be careful what you wish for. :D

Lightwolf
07-14-2005, 07:28 AM
It would be interesting to see a break down of the separatists to see how many of them actually have used anything other than LW. I would be willing to bet that a large percentange of them have not and therefor have trouble seeing the benefits.
Actually, I've yet to use any other package in 3D production... and I'm not a fan of separatism (obviously ;) ). Actually, I've never even used more "separate" but quite powerful tools that I have at my disposal but find virtually useless for the way I work (-> project messiah and modo for example). Using those is just as bad as LW without the hub ;)

Cheers,
Mike

Steve McRae
07-14-2005, 07:30 AM
I like the progress the Dev team are doing and this matter will be addressed


How do *you* know?

Matt
07-14-2005, 07:50 AM
I hear 8.5 is gonna ...

8. Fully configurable UI



Really hope all that is true! As for 8. I really hope they've done it right!

KillMe
07-14-2005, 07:57 AM
they couldn't drop out of the the market entirely for however long it took to mak e new version - it would be the death of lightwave - byt the time they opened up shop again everyone would be using somethign else and probally wouldn't come back unless the new version was many time s better than anything else out there

parm
07-14-2005, 08:08 AM
Communication, indeed does seem to be the crux of this issue. Reading through this lengthy thread, it seems to me that we are not all agreed on what we mean by integration and separation.

Separate, uncluttered, optimised workspaces, integrated use of assets, real time updating of scene objects. And the ability to switch seamlessly between modeling, animation, dynamics, etc, environments. To me that's integration, what does it look like? it looks like Lightwave, without the Hub.

The development of the Hub, in the first place, points towards the integration of Modeler & Layout.

The prospect of animating modeller actions like the one described by Digital Verve. Now, isn't that irresistible?

Parm

wacom
07-14-2005, 09:12 AM
But that is an implementation problem, not an integration problem...
Imagine this: You select a mesh in Layout, click on "Edit", "Model" whatever and _instantly_ the menu changes, all other objects are hidden and you're in a modelling environment. How much faster could it be?
Hechk, it would even allow you to model "in context" of your scene if so desired, or in world coordinates to match something up to your scenery etc...

Cheers,
Mike

My thoughts exactly!

http://vbulletin.newtek.com/showthread.php?t=23611&highlight=Intergration

I'd add that one should be able to have an edit viewport open AND a scene viewport so that any object you select in the scene will be centered and displayed in the edit port.


they couldn't drop out of the the market entirely for however long it took to mak e new version - it would be the death of lightwave - byt the time they opened up shop again everyone would be using somethign else and probally wouldn't come back unless the new version was many time s better than anything else out there

It's sad though. Softimage did this, and though it's too early to tell I think it's paying off. Still, from what I've heard it's been a hard road to get there- some have said that things were not working right 'till 3.0! Still the idea of a WIP is what applications should always be since they have to evolve. Many tools in XSI are updated slowly- but they are updated and so don't remain half baked or "dead/forgoten" for ever.

Still LW has so many basic things going for it that other apps don't have- but people shouldn't be afraid of change and become isolationists. Intergration wouldn't kill LW anymore than the intergration of a spell checker in Illustrator killed it.

mrunion
07-14-2005, 09:44 AM
I'm mostly a hobbysit, but have used LW for some "production" stuff.

I've also used Imagine --separate interfaces, and Blender -- combined interfaces.

I prefer LW to stay like it is. Separate. That's my opinion. But Blender has to have the slickest interface for usability and such. *If* NewTek ever considered integrating the two, if it worked like Blender I'd be happy.

tischbein3
07-14-2005, 10:18 AM
It is not really a integrate or separate matter. More and better communication is needed between the apps. The two solutions given can both look like each other.

Yes, I think both fractions do agree, the hub at its current state is a lousy compromise nobody is really happy about.

If integrated means: I do have no recogniseable speed loss / stabilty issues, full access to all current features, and the possebillity to launch at least two instances I'm with integrated.

If seperated means: I do have shared memory access, opengl preview of the scene in modeler (and full editeable layout items), plus a handfull more options (like a timeline in modeler), I'm with seperated.

Don't know if one of these is easier to implement in comparison to the other.
Both would be quite time intensive and would need heavy tweaking.

Because I'm more with the seperate fraction (mostly because I'm used to)
I wouldn't accept some compromise on any of the "if" on the integrated solution. ;)



I like the progress the Dev team are doing and this matter will be addressed

Maybe at Siggraph we will hear NT announce that they are closing the Lightwave doors for a couple of years to concentrate on a totally new version.

No. IMHO two sources for certain trouble we have, are based on the relative big time gaps between certain releases (wich has been luckily changed now), and the low information exchange between the development team and user when a new version is developed. (It's feature guessing on both sides)



Be careful what you wish for. :D

Exactly. I think 25% of both fractions do not really made up their mind how much this would change their workflow.

Although it sounds very unrealistic I think to go both ways would be the best:

Slowly integrate features of each other AND work on the intercommunication concept in the next 2-3 major releases, would be the savest method. Then at a certain time in future this discussion could be relaunched.

:yingyang:

WizCraker
07-14-2005, 11:14 AM
Shouldn't this mean they have less excuse for lacking in basic features? After all they had 5 YEARS to think it out. It always amazes me that Maya is on version 7 now and certain workflows and basic tools are implemented or implemented badly when with Maya they had a chance to rebuild everything from the ground up and it's still so lacking in some respects. And they get away with it. But then maybe I'm not as in love with maya as a lot of people seem to be.

I was just showing the History of the three companies not design flaws. All programs have their pitfalls.

The 1 unit = 10 cm thing is what Softimage told me when I called support.

WizCraker
07-14-2005, 11:31 AM
Intergration wouldn't kill LW anymore than the intergration of a spell checker in Illustrator killed it.

There is a Spell Checker in Illustrator? hmm, must have missed that feature completly. Wonder if they have one in InDesign...

Stooch
07-14-2005, 11:51 AM
I have been using lightwave since version 4. When upgrading to latest version, the support person could not believe that i actually had the original packaging and the original manuals. Yes ive been with the program since the very beginning (im a pc user).

I used lightwave exlcusively until about 2001, when i picked up maya in college. In the course of 2 years i was a more powerful 3d artist with maya then i ever was with lightwave. Integration in no way hindered my ability to use the program.

Now that im out of college, i find myself using lightwave once again. Because overall lightwave gets **** done, although every day i pine for the features of maya. Like history based work flow, edge selection, ngon subd AND most importantly real displacements with support for normal mapping.

Also, once you use REAL HARDWARE OGL coming back to lightwaves pathetic cpu based OGL is a painful experience.

Currently im working with real flow, messiah, lightwave and looking into zbrush.

However, after working with so many separate packages, im developing a desire to simplify the toolset with something more unified. DOWN WITH THE HUB! It is a cancer that will eat lightwaves brain.

cresshead
07-14-2005, 04:19 PM
hi...never ending thread alert!

so....
lightwave1.0 was 1990

3ds max1.0 1996

maya 1.0 was 1998

xsi 1.0 was 2000

that makes both maya and xsi "new kids on the block" :D with xsi being the latest from the ground up NEW 3d app...

the 1 unit is 1 decimeter of xsi is created for dynamics though as i have stated at some length ['scuse the punn! ;) ]that is of little or no use for inches [12 to the foot...not maya's or cinema's 10...] feet, yards and miles...

just so we're quite fair on this small subject [2'4"] lightwave is not perfect...i'd also like a camera in modeler...maybe lights too...but actually NOT having lights eventually gave us luxigons which are VERY cool in usage on large projects [ 1 mile 220yds long] :agree:

for me personally...i'd look at xsi seruoisly if they [softimage] took 3d seriously as a all round 3d content creator not just a game level editor or
a tv advert creator.

no units?.........no use :thumbsdow


xsi has some great things...but without the basics intact in a pro app there's little point having supa dupa stuff that would make it a real contender...


i'm hoping xsi 5.0 finally gets a selectable left and right view port as well as a full set of unit systems.

until than lightwave 1.0 and above rules [scuse the punn again!!] and does so in the company of 3ds max as this too has a robust measurment system.

til next time!

steve g :lwicon:

robewil
07-14-2005, 04:58 PM
so....
lightwave1.0 was 1990

3ds max1.0 1996

maya 1.0 was 1998

xsi 1.0 was 2000
This depends on how far back you are willing to go.

Lightwave came from Aegis Videoscape 3D on the Amiga in 1986. (I still have some of Allen Hastings early demo animations he did back then)

3ds max comes from 3D Studio which was available in the early 1990's. Its earliest roots however, date back to Cyber 3D on the Atari ST computers back in the 1980's.

Maya resulted in the merging of Alias and Wavefront, who were two independant companies making 3D software for SGI in the 1980's and 1990's.

xsi comes from SoftImage on SGI from at least, the early 1990's.

While were at it, Animation Master also comes from the Amiga (known as Hash Animator, then Hash Animation Journeyman) back in 1987.

Cinema 4D also comes from the Amiga, originally.

cresshead
07-14-2005, 06:01 PM
well i was going from the first version number of the product....version 1.0 rather than when a company formed or when they thought if the idea! ;)
which i believe is quite a reasonable and logical place to start.


but lw1.0 :lwicon: is lightwave! :lwicon:

DragonFist
07-15-2005, 03:19 AM
well i was going from the first version number of the product....version 1.0 rather than when a company formed or when they thought if the idea! ;)
which i believe is quite a reasonable and logical place to start.


but lw1.0 :lwicon: is lightwave! :lwicon:


Thing is, though, that in the case of Lightwave and 3DS Max, the programs actually were there much earlier. They just had a name change and new number system added. 3DS Max 1.0 was 3DS 15 or something like that in reality.

Man, I remember Lightwave 2 on the Amiga. I was just a kid doing animations with included models and later with 3.0 and 4.0 recreating Babylon 5 scenes with the models off the net on my Amiga 2000 Super rigged with a Motorola CPU running at a whopping 66mhz (mighta been 48, heh) and 16mb RAM. Years later, I would show my friends how much faster it was than their Pentium 2 systems having 2 or 3 times the clock speed. To bad it Amiga went the way it did.

Anyhoo, My vote is that I would like to have Layout and Modeler to share all their functions. I like the separate workspaces, but I hate the back and forth workflow for some things. Like surfacing, you can surface to some degree in modeler but to really get it done, you have to be in Layout and if you decide that the UV map needs tweeking it's back to modeler for that but back to layout for more texture tweaks, etc., etc.

So all I want is to have various tools that are logically needed in both apps to be in both apps so one can focus on the models in Modeler and Animating in Layout and not have to do modeling half in one and half in the other. If that is done by unifying the code into one app with modules, than I am fine with it. But I would like to keep the two jobs seperate. Or at least be able to keep them separate if I wish. It seems that would be workable to me. Perhaps, it can be done now that it seems any copyright issues are sorted out as I believe that Layout and Modeler had been separate due to being programed and owned separately themselves.

My two copper pieces,

Shawn

operation
07-15-2005, 07:32 AM
"I hate the back and forth workflow for some things."

Yes ! that's true !
I lose a lot of time switching and the worst things with the hub are:
-When modeler or Layout crash (one of them).
-When you deleted a layer in the layout.
-Didn't know if the last version of the object is in layout or modeler( after tweaking surface )
-Impossible to track a live footage ( hard to setup your geometry - size , position - with the live footage ), need to use 2 screens and update by hand the modifications done on the objects (I did a shortcut in Modeler to "update Layout" each time I change an object).
-Layers name ?!! ...
-some plugins are not working in both applications at the same time( something wrong in the shared core between Mlr and Lyt)
-and so many others...

And of course it's cool to have 2 interfaces (for modeling and an other to animate ) but as someone said : Nt could merge and share only code (same tools, same requesters, same datas, etc.. ) and just switch like XSI or Softimage between modules , or Maya with Mayalive.
Now using Lw is like using 2 tools for me ( silo+messiah).

I have been working in video game industry, I can understand it's more usefull to use the modeler alone. If you are an animator and you really don't care about modeling you don't need modeling tools in your interface.
But since I was working in broadcast industry (TV,movie), it's slowing down the workflow : ( sometime I need to keep each tests (or versions of my work), I have to copy the 'content' folder each time I wont to modify an object and a scene. With Max , maya, XSI , you can save a "embed" (scenes+meshes+setup,etc..) in one file, and save incremental tests.
Now I always take care to not modify the object until I make a copy.

I am sure that in one "application", the workflow will be better (for all reasons we know). It will be hard to find a good way to do it (one big problem will be to integrate the layer ability of the Modeler: Maybe in the Layout an object with multiple layer must be considered like a "group" = a closed object -see 3dsmax. And if someone want to animate an multilayer object ( body car in layer one, wheels in layer two), you can click on an "open group" fonction to animate the whells without braking an object in multiple elements.
I hate to see a long list of object in Layout just because your scene use multiple layers. I always copy all layers in the first layer and save the object before to send it in Layout ( Like in the old version 5.6,etc..).

If "WE" want a single application, it's because we have experienced limitations or diffculties working with lightwave. and again I understand that if you use only th modeler or only the layout, you don't see or understand why "WE" want an unique application. but believe me when you do like me (modeling,texturing, animating, effect, compositing) all thos jobs in the same project, it's very handy to stay in one application.


Just a tips for developper : in Maya you can unload part of the program e: if you don't want Mayalive, Mentalray, etc.. you just have to uncheck to unload it ( 3dsmax can do it ! ), maybe that's can be made for people who wants to keep only modeling tools or animation tools.

I think it's a discussion with no issue, we are all loosing our energy about this subject because : you pick up the layout you change the menu on left and you have the modeler ..Modeler and Layout looks the same in the main view , .. it's psycologic and subjective ... and if you still want 2 applications ( you can use Modo and Messiah).

cheers !
Operation

ps: As I said before , if there is 2 applications, it because there were 2 developers. the separate mode wasn't done for the good reasons. It's time to change and to see the future and not the past!(the past was bad). I prefere to have a team working together than 2 teams working on 2 different applications : it's one of the mistakes of the old team...

CB_3D
07-15-2005, 08:21 AM
integration is just another way to say "enance the connection/hub".

Iīd rather like to see some real work done on cloth, hair and bones/jointdeformation.

Matt
07-15-2005, 10:14 AM
There is a Spell Checker in Illustrator? hmm, must have missed that feature completly. Wonder if they have one in InDesign...

Yep there is! In Illustrator it's found under the 'Edit' menu, same place for InDesign.

evenflcw
07-15-2005, 10:25 AM
Just a tips for developper : in Maya you can unload part of the program e: if you don't want Mayalive, Mentalray, etc.. you just have to uncheck to unload it ( 3dsmax can do it ! ), maybe that's can be made for people who wants to keep only modeling tools or animation tools.

It's my understanding that LW already does something like this. Instead of loading everything into memory by default at startup like Maya (unless told otherwise) or Photoshop, LW only loads plugins when used (which imho is smarter). Before that point all it needs is provided in LWEXT.cfg. This is probably a big part of why LW starts up so fast and hogs considerably less memory at startup than most other softwares of simular complexity. But don't quote me on that!

Lightwolf
07-15-2005, 11:42 AM
It's my understanding that LW already does something like this. Instead of loading everything into memory by default at startup like Maya (unless told otherwise) or Photoshop, LW only loads plugins when used (which imho is smarter).
While this is true, I don't think other apps load the plugins into memory until needed either.
The difference is that other apps automatically scan for new plugins every time you start them up, something that you have to do manually in LW.
So, a scan is basically: find file, attempt to load it, if it works list it as a plugin and remove it from memory again.

Cheers,
Mike

P.S. A bit of trivia: LightWave actually allows you to "unload" plugins that have been used in the current session, but aren't applied to anything anymore. The command is "FlushUnusedPlugins" and can be mapped to a button or key.
Quite handy for developing, since you can then overwrite the .p file with new output from the compiler and don't have to restart LW for every debugging session.

art
07-15-2005, 12:29 PM
Quite handy for developing, since you can then overwrite the .p file with new output from the compiler and don't have to restart LW for every debugging session.

Oh, dear Lightwolf, you just saved me from lots and lots of LW restarts. Thanks for the great tip! Thus far I had to shut down LW each time I needed to recompile a plugin (while debugging etc)

Lightwolf
07-15-2005, 12:37 PM
Oh, dear Lightwolf, you just saved me from lots and lots of LW restarts. Thanks for the great tip!
Oh dear Art, you're very welcome my friend :D

Cheers,
Mike

wacom
07-15-2005, 03:38 PM
xsi has some great things...but without the basics intact in a pro app there's little point having supa dupa stuff that would make it a real contender...


i'm hoping xsi 5.0 finally gets a selectable left and right view port as well as a full set of unit systems.

until than lightwave 1.0 and above rules [scuse the punn again!!] and does so in the company of 3ds max as this too has a robust measurment system.

til next time!



So did you really play around with the fuctions of the XSI viewport? I found many of the features very useful- including the 5 user selected and saved positions for each view port that are just a middle click away. Talk about a way to maximize limited resources and speed up workflow! But I guess if it can't do things the way you're used to then it must be crap then. Besides there are ways to get very quick L/R/T/B views...

You're a bit xenophobic when it comes to applications- no? For every bit of spit you throw at XSI there are many more that can be directed at MAX. But that might be because I'm an old school 3DS DOS user...man those were the days...




for me personally...i'd look at xsi seruoisly if they [softimage] took 3d seriously as a all round 3d content creator not just a game level editor or
a tv advert creator.




Sorry, didn't know that the application that made two of the best selling/made games of the year was simply a game level editor. Ever try to bake out a lot of passes in LW or MAX? Besides- the game industry is nothing to sneeze at when it comes to employment. I'm not saying that LW and MAX can't and aren't used to make great games, just that LW could use a little more "help" in this area.

And since when are movies, games, and commericals not enough? I'd say a 3D application is fairly well rounded if it's used for all three fairly often. So how many movies and commericals are made in MAX as compared to LW and XSI? I could buy your talk if I thought you were just a LW user...but MAX...

Chuck
07-15-2005, 03:48 PM
People - no part of the debate needs to involve calling other people names or denigrating them in any way because they have a different opinion of matters than you do. Discuss the applications and the issues, not each other.

cresshead
07-15-2005, 04:41 PM
well said...chatting about xsi was getting waay off topic anyway :)

looking forward to lightwav's next update! :lwicon:

tischbein3
07-15-2005, 09:00 PM
...
Quite handy for developing, since you can then overwrite the .p file with new output from the compiler and don't have to restart LW for every debugging session.


Thanks Lightwolf !
This will speed up my programming about 30% and, more important, fun factor around 1 zillion times.
AFAIK this isn't mentioned in the sdk docs, isnt' it ?


:bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown:
:bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown:

evenflcw
07-15-2005, 10:23 PM
While this is true, I don't think other apps load the plugins into memory until needed either.
The difference is that other apps automatically scan for new plugins every time you start them up, something that you have to do manually in LW.
So, a scan is basically: find file, attempt to load it, if it works list it as a plugin and remove it from memory again.

Hmmm... I think you are right. Now that you mention it, loading/installing plugins for LW does take about the same amount of time. I just never thought of it because I do it so seldome. Having that happen at every startup is quite annoying. Thanks for clearing that up!

-He who doesn't like to wait for Photoshop.

Lightwolf
07-16-2005, 04:12 AM
AFAIK this isn't mentioned in the sdk docs, isnt' it ?

No it isn't. I picked that up on some obscure thread in the plugin developers mailing list a couple of years back.
Actually, I just checked, it is not mentioned as a command in the 7.5 SDK docs (the ones I use), it is however in the command list that you can save using the appropriate menu entry in Layout. It is also visible in the key and menu editors.
I'm not sure if Modeler has a similar command.

Cheers,
Mike

tischbein3
07-16-2005, 11:02 AM
No it isn't. I picked that up on some obscure thread in the plugin developers mailing list a couple of years back.
Actually, I just checked, it is not mentioned as a command in the 7.5 SDK docs (the ones I use), it is however in the command list that you can save using the appropriate menu entry in Layout. It is also visible in the key and menu editors.
I'm not sure if Modeler has a similar command.

Cheers,
Mike

it seems not.... :(

lw3d23
08-01-2005, 11:54 AM
I hear 8.5 is gonna offer Parametric modeling tools along with a robust Multi-Pass rendering setup which will export After Effects and Digital Fusion project files.

Also, a type of iterative fPrime technology will be integrated along with the following advances:
1. Faster and cleaner Area Lights
2. Faster and cleaner GI
3. Faster Bones and a more robust and true setup process
4. Instancing will be prevalent in Layout and you will be able to grow objects over time because of a new parametric tool that is hooked up to extrusions/bevels.
5. All light types will offer Shadow Map, Raytrace and Area Light shadow types.
6. nGons
7. NonDestructive/Editable Splines
8. Fully configurable UI
9. Tighter Modeler and Layout Integration (it will feel closer to 1 application)
10. AO will be a multipass option
11. Overhauled HVs
12. Object/Axis Gizmo in modeler
13. Tearable Viewport windows so you can have as many as you want

Well...that's what I heard through the grapevine anyhoo. ;D


Probably this is not a rumor and it may come true! ;) Some improvements are already in current LW9.0 feature list.

Zach
08-03-2005, 12:43 AM
I agree with Chuck... all the apps mentioned are awesome in their own ways (although, I haven't used max since 3 and i don't know what's aweome about it now... besides the 3rd party renderers)

Do what you know, with what you know and you'll be fine. If you work at a place that uses something different... learn what you're getting paid for and enjoy what you love at home!

XSI has definitely become my favorite 3d app when it comes to features like uv mapping, volumic lights and basic modeling (history stack is pretty kewl). Lightwave rocks in texturing (can't wait for 9's node based system, and i love the way you can use weight maps with relative ease to shade objects), more modeling primitives and modeling tools and hypervoxels, and FPrime. Maya has Paint Effects and the very awesome Hypershade where you can plug just about anything into anything! very kewl. ZBrush is great just becasue! Hopefully Vue will be too (haven't gotten it yet but it's promising)

The great thing about all the 3d apps these days is that you can afford to buy them. XSI Foundation is a complete steal! It just needs object referencing and you're rockin' the casbah. LightWave, as we all know, is f-in awesome, and CHEAP! You can't get a better deal than what's going on with LW and VUE right now! Zbrush! Yes. now you ad all those prices up, and you've got the price of LW when they dropped it the first time practically, and if you ad maya complete, you have the price of Max.

digital verve
06-10-2010, 08:13 AM
My speculation :D

LW 8.5 will be a killer release inc proper edges, ngon subd, further improved psd export, SDK opened up enough to allow FPrime to render all that LW can (apart from maybe Hypervoxels), big rendering enchancements inc much improved motion blur, modeller workflow refinements plus a few new modelling tools and some more.

Followed by 8.6 and 8.7 bug fix and maintenance releases.

Lightwave 9 with an integrated (but separate in appearance modeller) allowing parametric and history stuff and a fluid system to die for :) Siggraph 2006 :)

5 Years on and I am still waiting for most of these. :devil: :D :thumbsup: