PDA

View Full Version : Re: NEWTEK and MAC - where we headed?



jat
09-17-2005, 12:14 PM
I've been looking over some of the Mac bug lists and its scary and stupid. I am just getting back into 3D and wanted to know the scoop on what Newtek is doing to fix all the problems I've been reading about. It seems to me and I might be wrong, that things are just left hanging and there is slow or no progress. What can you guys tell me about this seemingly disturbing situation. Please no flames, I just want the truth about where LW Mac is at this point.

:stumped:

Ade
09-18-2005, 08:48 PM
We'll all know by 8.5... We'll see what parity we get.

jat
09-19-2005, 10:36 AM
and then we can see where exactly Newtek is regarding the platform.

Johnny
09-19-2005, 02:47 PM
there was a thread a while back referring Newtek's presense at, I believe, Siggraph...

It seems that things are afoot at Newtek such that OS X will be no merely ported to, but written FOR, a big step in squeezing out more power from our Macs while using LW..

you could prbly find that discussion if you searched here under, maybe siggraph, or LW 9, or similar

J

archiea
09-20-2005, 07:00 PM
Actually we've been hearing that since 7.5.... Lets see though... with the Mac transition to intel, I'd hate to have to commit to parity on a poermac with and intal mac just on the horizon. Perhaps the whole Xcode conversion thing will help.. But what do I know... apple script is like assembly language to me!!! :)

Ade
09-20-2005, 07:07 PM
Alot of us mac users have given up and either gone, lw win/x86, mac modo or mac c4d.

There is just too much, its apples fault or its newteks fault but never nothing getting done. Lightwave and macs just arent worth the investment.

willog
09-22-2005, 03:02 PM
Yeah thats the way I have gone now, just about give up on Newtek regarding the Mac, not once have they even had the decency to responds to the issue regarding points not showing after Lightwave 7.5 .

I have personally gone over to C4D far more reliable on the Mac.
I feel totally let down. Shame on you Newtek for not responding to the many issues listed on your own forum.

I guess I only come here now to see if they have the slightest bit of decency to respond to the calls forn help from the Mac users

Ade
09-22-2005, 03:50 PM
What Ive learned is that no matter what is said there is always blame pointed at apple.
Now i dont know what lightwave has that apple isnt supporting but this doesnt seem to be an issue with other apps, just lightwaves.
I think lw on mac is a just an average port and any work put into it is strictly for major bug fixes and never optimisations or feature rich additions.

Lightwave is a pc app, its written for win 64, x86 multicore, open gl hardware shader support etc... None of these have or will come to mac versions.
Lets face it, how hard is it to get motion or fcp support?
How hard is it to get an xcode lightwave "beta" out in 2 years?
How hard is it to support features like core video for effects?
Seems to be very hard if you follow lw...but if u looked in c4d and modo you would see theyre already doing it.

Lets stop hastling newtek and just buy a pc and support lightwave pc...
The mac version just creates arguments and disapointments.

Darth Mole
09-22-2005, 04:29 PM
All well and good, but you're asking me to ditch many thouands of UK pounds investment - G5, monitor, LW install, updates, plug-ins, books... I'd really much rather NewTek made it work properly.

Ade
09-22-2005, 04:51 PM
its not a problem of lightwave working properly because it does.
The trouble is mac features are always 70% supported due to newtek or apples fault...

jat
09-22-2005, 10:13 PM
if Newtek knows how Apple does things then why not work around that and solve the issues as best as possible? It seems to me that nobody wants to touch this hot potatoe and, if left long enough on the plate, it grows cold. HELLO NEWTEK ARE U LISTENING !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Captain Obvious
09-22-2005, 10:24 PM
Lightwave is a pc app, its written for win 64, x86 multicore, open gl hardware shader support etc... None of these have or will come to mac versions.
Some things I should point out...

Lightwave has had support for dual-core processors - both x86 and PPC - for as long as it's been multi-threaded. You do not need to optimize specifically for multiple cores.

Mac OS X's OpenGL drivers are hardly top-of-the-line. Newtek has a good reason for blaming Apple if they can't get all the nifty OpenGL features in the Mac version. That said, Lightwave has downright hideous OpenGL performance. This is NOT Apple's fault. On my computer, Modeler gets unworkable after about 30k polygons. C4D, Modo, heck, even Cheetah3D and Blender can handle much more. Modo is smoother with 300k polygons than Modeler is with 30k. What makes Apple's drivers bad is not really poor performance, it's a poor feature set.

Tiger really isn't 64-bit. This is Apple's fault. But regardless, it's not like 64-bit Lightwave is really in working condition at the moment either (considering how many plugins are utterly broken).

Lightwolf
09-23-2005, 01:02 AM
That said, Lightwave has downright hideous OpenGL performance. This is NOT Apple's fault.
True, but then again, this affects the PC side of things us well, where things only _feel_ better because apparently openGL is snappier. But in relation to other software LW is just as "slow" as it is onthe Mac. From the public roadmaps/feature lists it seems that NT are quite aware of the fact though.

Cheers,
Mike

Captain Obvious
09-23-2005, 01:35 AM
Here's hoping they'll fix it.

Lightwolf
09-23-2005, 02:47 AM
Here's hoping they'll fix it.
I think it require less of a 'fix' (being picky here, but that word makes it sound so easy ;) ) but more of a complete re-design of the openGL pipeline. Then again, looking at the public statements, that seems to be in the works.

I was quite blown away when I saw how some competing 3D tools handle large poly meshes, like 500.000 polys spinning in realtime fully shaded... (mind you, not a _deformed_ mesh, a static mesh, CAD data).

Cheers,
Mike

Brian Redoutey
09-23-2005, 09:21 AM
I'm pretty much with Willog on this one. I check these forums from time to time wondering how the mac version of LW is. When I interned at a local cable station, I just about coudlnt' get any work done for htem at home unitl 7.5d came out.

This is basically about business decisions. I gave up and jumped ship completely. I went with Maya and never looked back. I'll say I'm much happier with Maya, its performance is many times better on teh same hardware, and I'll leave it at that I don't want to start a flame war.

NewTek is a business. They're goign to put most of their resources on whatever product makes them the most money. This is basic business/economics 101. That's just how it is. If anohter platform suddenly jumped massively up in marketshare and ate up the other ones, then yes this 'other' platform would get more resources for coding etc....becuase it's going to be more profitable.

Chuck
09-23-2005, 01:16 PM
NewTek is fully committed to advancing LightWave on the Mac, as we've stated elsewhere numerous times. It is also the case that we're committed to eliminating any platform specific bugs on the Mac, and to making better use of the strengths of the platform.

Our development staff monitors the bug reports here, and in particular the Bug Workshop thread. We also have a standing request with our Mac beta testers to test and confirm the bugs reported there, to insure that we can duplicate and fully understand the issues so as to properly resolve them, and we do our best to address all issues in as timely a fashion as possible.

It is absolutely not the case that LightWave is developed on Windows and ported to the Mac. The overwhelming majority of the code is platform-agnostic, and the parts that need to be platform-specific have always been developed in parallel. The notion that any other multi-platform 3D application is more committed to the Mac than NewTek is, you may may rest assured is incorrect. We've certainly had our issues a while back that impeded development for a time but those affected both platforms equally.

As for responses, I respond regularly here on the forums and so do other NewTek staff. Apologies if I or the others may have missed something you particularly wanted a response on, or if you have missed our response to a given issue and therefore don't realize that we have in fact given a response.

As for the "points not showing after 7.5", please be more specific in your description - it sounds like any one of a number of display issues, some of which we've dealt with by cooperating with video card developers where an issue resided within the drivers, and some of which would need to be addressed within the LightWave code (and the majority of which we expect to eliminate when we replace the custom direct drawing code in LightWave with a more standard OpenGL implementation that will take proper advantage of the speed and capabilities of the latest hardware and drivers).

Chuck
09-23-2005, 01:30 PM
What Ive learned is that no matter what is said there is always blame pointed at apple.
Now i dont know what lightwave has that apple isnt supporting but this doesnt seem to be an issue with other apps, just lightwaves.
I think lw on mac is a just an average port and any work put into it is strictly for major bug fixes and never optimisations or feature rich additions.



The fact of the matter is that other 3D applications on the Mac are equally affected by what is and is not implemented in OS X, and they have said so just as publicly. Until Apple provides a 64-bit GUI, none of the 3D applications for the Mac will be able to do a full port to 64-bit on the Mac, because to create a scene of the scope that requires 64-bit memory space, you have to be able to handle and manipulate the complete dataset of the scene within the GUI of the 3D application. Until Apple provides drivers that support OpenGL 2.0 (there are already display cards installed in many Macs that have the hardware for it), no application will be able to provide GLSL Hardware Shader support on the Mac.

The feature set on Mac and Windows has been at parity for a long time, has been maintained through several generations of updates, and we wouldn't depart from that now except that we're forced to, for the moment, until Apple adds support for the necessary elements to the OS.

IgnusFast
09-23-2005, 07:37 PM
The feature set on Mac and Windows has been at parity for a long time, has been maintained through several generations of updates, and we wouldn't depart from that now except that we're forced to, for the moment, until Apple adds support for the necessary elements to the OS.


And I applaud you for the attempt, except that while Lightwave on my PC is a remarkably stable application, Lightwave on my G5 crashes like a drunken mad bastard. If you can't make it feature complete, can you at least make it stable? :) Granted, it's much better with the Hub disabled, but it's still an irritant.

Oh, and that surface editing bug (in Layout and Modeler) is a real beeotch. Every x number of times I edit a surface, the textures stop rendering (in both the interactive preview window and when doing an actual render). Same scene, models, and textures are all fine on my PC. Sometimes just going back into the surface panel and clicking a texture button will magiacally make it appear correctly again. And if you save the object with this bug, when you reload it, the same thing happens (until you reopen the surfaces panel and do the dance until it's fixed).

But neither of these, whether Apple's fault or something in Lightwave has ever occured on Windows.

jat
09-23-2005, 08:12 PM
what do you suggest we do then? It's them, it's us, it's whoever. The only thing we want is, I guess, for all of you (Apple, Newtek, Ati, Nvidia) to be on the same page to remedy this stuff. How does that happen? I can definately yell at Apple and Ati but will they listen to me? Can't you guys twist some arms over there? What do you say...

:santa:

3dworks
09-24-2005, 02:40 AM
....
The feature set on Mac and Windows has been at parity for a long time, has been maintained through several generations of updates, and we wouldn't depart from that now except that we're forced to, for the moment, until Apple adds support for the necessary elements to the OS.

does this mean that the new opengl shading features in 8.5 will not work on OSX? or is it simply a matter of what kind of graphic hardware we have installed in our macs?

markus

Captain Obvious
09-24-2005, 02:57 AM
does this mean that the new opengl shading features in 8.5 will not work on OSX? or is it simply a matter of what kind of graphic hardware we have installed in our macs?

markus
They require something that Apple does not currently supply. It is rumoured that some upgrade to Tiger (namely the next one) will include vastly upgraded graphics drivers, so it may happen sooner rather than later. They key, however, is that it has not yet happened.

Ade
09-25-2005, 11:18 PM
Chuck have you guys hasstled Apple about this support?
What is said and what progress is being made?
If Newtek cannot talk about developmental progress, hint to us something.

riki
09-26-2005, 06:42 AM
Hey Ade, I knew I'd find you here :)

Chuck
09-27-2005, 11:52 AM
Chuck have you guys hasstled Apple about this support?
What is said and what progress is being made?
If Newtek cannot talk about developmental progress, hint to us something.

As we've mentioned many times already, we do communicate regularly with our contacts at Apple regarding these and all other issues that affect our development on the Mac platform. Our sense is that Apple is doing their best to properly prioritize and address such issues, and that they do take into account the feedback that they receive from customers as well as from developers.

Chuck
09-27-2005, 01:41 PM
And I applaud you for the attempt, except that while Lightwave on my PC is a remarkably stable application, Lightwave on my G5 crashes like a drunken mad bastard. If you can't make it feature complete, can you at least make it stable? :) Granted, it's much better with the Hub disabled, but it's still an irritant.

The majority of Mac users do not report such extreme instability. Have you communicated with our technical support services to see if you can troubleshoot the problems? Do you have specific repeatable steps that would help determine the nature of the issues you are encountering? Have you reported those to tech support as well? Were they able to assist you?


Oh, and that surface editing bug (in Layout and Modeler) is a real beeotch. Every x number of times I edit a surface, the textures stop rendering (in both the interactive preview window and when doing an actual render). Same scene, models, and textures are all fine on my PC. Sometimes just going back into the surface panel and clicking a texture button will magiacally make it appear correctly again. And if you save the object with this bug, when you reload it, the same thing happens (until you reopen the surfaces panel and do the dance until it's fixed).

But neither of these, whether Apple's fault or something in Lightwave has ever occured on Windows.

There are issues in the Windows version that don't occur on the Mac, as well; but by and large, even if a particular problem exists on both platforms, the Mac is far more likely to be unforgiving. Please note that is not a criticism of the platform, by any means, and please also rest assured that in the dev team's estimation lenience of the symptoms on one platform does not make a bug any less serious an issue. It's also the case that some few Windows LightWave users have experienced instability not typical for other users of the platform, and that can take some serious troubleshooting to trace down. What's relevant to your own individual experience is that we're more than willing to assist in troubleshooting the issues that may be presenting an unusual instability, and if you or other Mac users have reported the bug you mention, please rest assured it will be addressed in as timely a fashion as possible.

IgnusFast
09-27-2005, 03:00 PM
The majority of Mac users do not report such extreme instability. Have you communicated with our technical support services to see if you can troubleshoot the problems? Do you have specific repeatable steps that would help determine the nature of the issues you are encountering? Have you reported those to tech support as well? Were they able to assist you?



To be completely blunt, no, I did not follow up with tech support. These issues first happened with an existing Jaguar install on my G5. I upgraded it to Panther with high hopes, but still had the exact same issues (Hub crashing, surface editing problems). So I installed a second HD, backed up my content folder, and did a clean install of Panther and Lightwave 8 (with the last downloadable update). Same thing.

In all fairness, I've never seen some of the other issues people have mentioned here; once I disabled the Hub, I think I've had one, maybe two crashes of Lightwave tops. I've never had the Preference file problems or any other crash issues. But this Surface editing bug is a doozy, and since this machine (video card included) is completely stock, I find it really hard to believe that it has never been seen by your beta testers.

Chuck
09-27-2005, 04:21 PM
But this Surface editing bug is a doozy, and since this machine (video card included) is completely stock, I find it really hard to believe that it has never been seen by your beta testers.

I said nothing to indicate whether or not the beta testers had observed and reported it; I merely said that if it has been reported by you or anyone else, you may rest assured it will be addressed. In any case, I've forwarded the description from your message along to our bug wrangler, and if it's been reported, he'll let you know that, and if it hadn't been - well, it has now.

donc
09-27-2005, 07:01 PM
I am stuck in Mac 10.2.8 with lightwave 7.5d (ATI bug fix installed) and as far as I can tell from these forums, this is the last stable configuration for lightwave on the Mac.

I have built my business around lightwave on the Mac. And Lightwave has let me down.

Chuck, it sounds like newteks quality control on the Mac side is at fault here. I understand about apple's Open GL issues but...

Modo works
Maya works
Cinema 4D works

There needs to be a statement made by Newtek to the Mac community addressing the ongoing version 8+ stability issues with Lightwave!

You need to fix these problems. Or all your Mac pro users will move on.

I'd start with "How did we make 7.5 so stable on the Mac?" and then move on to "What wrong now?" and then "FIX IT!" to back your pro Mac users.

I love Lightwave's renderer and it would be a shame for myself and others to move on because of Newtek's 8+ quality/stability control issues.

We need a timeline itemized with Mac bug fixes! Period.

jeremyhardin
09-28-2005, 09:15 AM
Just wanted to throw something here for anyone thats just browsing and gets a poor impression of LW Mac...

More often than not, people don't complain about things that work. So while there are some pretty extreme statements being said here, it does not necessarily reflect everyone's experience in the LW/Mac community. Those that don't have problems have no reason to stop by and post complaints. They're probably busy plugging away at work.

Just trying to add a little perspective. Cheers.

Jeremy
LW 8.3 -- Powerbook G4 -- OS X 10.3.9

Darth Mole
09-28-2005, 09:24 AM
Fair comment. I'm one of the lucky ones for whom LW generally does what it says on the box. Usually the most misery I have is working with third-party add-ons. However, a while back I sat and modelled for about two days solid without a single glitch, so it's not all bad news...

Ade
09-28-2005, 06:18 PM
As we've mentioned many times already, we do communicate regularly with our contacts at Apple regarding these and all other issues that affect our development on the Mac platform. Our sense is that Apple is doing their best to properly prioritize and address such issues, and that they do take into account the feedback that they receive from customers as well as from developers.


What we're saying is we have heard this all before yet 8.5 was announced and low and behold I knew Netwek would disclose mac hardware shader support (lack there of) till the very end, until one of us kicked up a stink.

As it stands things arent progressing the way theyre going, I for one would rather Newtek support x86 linux than osx, cause it isnt happening the way we want and I dont want to use Windows.

Im not blaming Newtek 100% as I can see Apple sux for 3D in non related Newtek areas, but what im saying as it stands this system isnt giving us full parity. And why can other companies give us full parity but Newtek cannot?
Is it that the mac team is small?
There arent many mac users to bother making happy?
Mac code is too bothersome to go into and develope new areas?

Id like to hear from a mac programmer in newtek like we used to 3 years ago about the state of mac lightwave.

jat
09-28-2005, 06:55 PM
Ade, I'd like to hear an open answer myself. Where is this bottleneck that the Mac side of things seems to be hitting here and there and how big is the bottleneck. I think its safe to say that we aren't slamming here but just to get a good description of what exactly is going on with the code or the process of building parity. Chuck, let one of your Mac guys come on and spill all the beans he can................mmmmm I like beans.........

:hey: :beerchug:

Ade
09-28-2005, 07:00 PM
Chuck does a good job talking but somtimes we need to hear technical issues from mac programmers.

Apple released the G5 with a bus larger than pc's, why is there a bottleneck?
Whats keeping the xcode update?
Hows 8.5 going for macs?
What is newtek doing to kick Apple into gear?

Chuck
09-29-2005, 10:08 AM
I'll ask the LightWave team if there is a possibility that they would like to provide a more comprehensive update on the state of development for the Mac. I also have to point out that this assertion: "What we're saying is we have heard this all before yet 8.5 was announced and low and behold I knew Netwek would disclose mac hardware shader support (lack there of) till the very end, until one of us kicked up a stink." is just absolutely not the case. I personally have mentioned the issue with shader support on the Mac not being possible until Apple provides the support in the drivers several times here and IIRC other venues as well, the first time pretty shortly after our initial announcement that we were working on hardware shaders.

Many Mac users understood immediately that the documented capabilities of the current Mac drivers did not include OpenGL 2.0 hardware shader support and asked about the matter practically as soon as we'd released the list. I and other NewTek staff who addressed these questions in several venues answered forthrightly that yes, until Apple releases drivers that support OpenGL 2.0, we wouldn't be able to provide this on the Mac.

It is also the case that no one else can bring OpenGL 2.0 shader support to their product until Apple changes the drivers, and no one else can provide a fully capable 64-bit 3D application until Apple provides 64-bit GUI capability in the OS. Everyone is at parity on these issues, until Apple provides the needed updates.

As for overall OpenGL performance, LightWave uses custom drawing routines that at one time were advantageous for broader compatibility on a variety of cards including older ones, and for cards with lower RAM than would otherwise be required. They've lost that advantage long since, with the result that for some time now on both platforms LightWave's display performance has not kept up, and the problem is considerably more aggravated on the Mac. I think the dev team had hoped to include some of the changes that have been worked on in that regard in 8.5, but it looks like that work was not sufficiently complete to include in 8.5, while the hardware shader first generation implementation was. So as nearly as I can tell, at least the majority of the performance improvements on OpenGL due to replacement of our older routines with newer state-of-the-art approaches that gain the advantages of the current hardware will be part of the 9.0 update. All elements of those changes that apply to whatever level of support is current in OS X at the time v9 is released will apply to both platforms. We do expect that LightWave OpenGL performance on the Mac will be equal to other applications on the Mac at that point.

If you haven't read the new update on development status from Jay Roth, you'll find it here:

http://vbulletin.newtek.com/showthread.php?t=41153

All the developers are experienced with the Mac and have Macs as part of their development equipment. And if you really want the XCode port to progress in as timely a fashion as possible and all other issues to be addressed, then please consider that it might be better to leave the programmers busily coding and accept that non-programmers will be responding here, and will do their best to provide information to and from the development team as is most appropriate.

Ade, we're certainly open to feedback about the interest of users in a Linux port; please rest assured you are not going to talk us out of supporting the Mac platform. We believe in the Mac platform, as does a very significant part of our user community and the community of DCC artists in general, and we are committed to continuing our development for the Mac.

nsolo
09-29-2005, 11:04 AM
After reading todays news update,I'm afraid that LW is becoming another
inexpensive Windows world application. How is Maya's MAC support?

Chuck
09-29-2005, 12:02 PM
After reading todays news update, I'm afraid that LW is becoming another
inexpensive Windows world application. How is Maya's MAC support?

There is nothing about today's news update from Jay that would merit that kind of response. The two specific issues discussed in Jay's letter with regard to the Mac affect every 3D application that operates on the Mac, not just LightWave. As for the general issue of LightWave's display performance versus other applications, I've addressed that above.

Darth Mole
09-29-2005, 12:09 PM
Thanks Chuck, apprciate the honest answers. 8.5 sounds good, but can't wait for 9.0!

Chuck
09-29-2005, 12:40 PM
I'd like to hear from a mac programmer in newtek like we used to 3 years ago about the state of mac lightwave.

While Scott Thompson was onboard as our Mac specialist he posted from time to time, and that's been during the past two years up to just a couple of months ago, certainly at least as frequently if not far more so than the member from the old team that you are referring to; Mark Granger is currently our most experienced Mac programmer, having spent a good many years developing exclusively for the Mac before going into multi-platform development, but I don't expect him to be available to post here.

Ade
09-29-2005, 05:05 PM
I wouldnt even mind a mac development Blog page...
We just want to see activity to see direction the mac team is going so we know progression is being made.

Chuck all appreciated, another thing does newtek see lightwave as the home hobbiest/intermediate 3D app like discussed in siggraph of do you see lightwave pushing for pro market like it once did?

I have no problem paying more for a pro end version or features.
LW 9 will be good. Cant wait. Just contemplating if the vue esprit deal is advantageous to me.

jat
09-29-2005, 05:32 PM
so if your waiting for Apple then why can't you be the voice for us and PUSH them, or do they consider the invaluable cg artists and designers not worth their time. I've already sent my email to Steve himself to get some action. Pease if everyone could send him a line to KINDLY ask him to push things on his side of the fence, that would be a good step. Thanks Chuck, keep pushing yourselves too.

[email protected]



Steve :help: us, we're dying here

Johnny
09-29-2005, 06:31 PM
I'd think Apple would eagerly hear from heavyweights like Newtek about what's needed in the 3D world...they've been obviously pushing the Mac as the platform of choice for video, 3D, and music.

How long ago was it that Steve Job's made that "Apple has moved on" speech in which the implication was "Yeah, print is great, but we got bigger fish to fry."

I'm no expert, but if you want to fry a fish, you have to catch it first.

If Apple has some weak spots in 3D, they ought to git busy and start strengthening them.

This isn't meant to fan any flames; I'm a huge fan of both NT and Apple.. but the world is a dangerous place, and nothing's perfect.

J

Rabbitroo
09-29-2005, 09:13 PM
There is nothing about today's news update from Jay that would merit that kind of response. The two specific issues discussed in Jay's letter with regard to the Mac affect every 3D application that operates on the Mac, not just LightWave. As for the general issue of LightWave's display performance versus other applications, I've addressed that above.

Chuck,

As a former marketing manager myself, I might suggest you focus on what improvements Mac users will see with 8.5.

Newtek is Great! :lightwave

(I'm speaking as someone who's been with you guys since LW first came to the Mac platform.)

-K

Rabbitroo
09-29-2005, 09:21 PM
How is Maya's MAC support?

Tolerable. If you're doing CA, it's not a bad way to go. Takes getting used to--steep learning curve. Download Maya 7 PLE from their web site and see if it's for you.

C4D isn't a terrible choice but pricey for what it is. Be sure to get something with BodyPaint in it which might take away the sting of the price (no stupid dongle or nodelock either.) OGL performance much better than LW[8]. Much better on dual monitors as well.

Since I'm doing a lot of stills, I model in Modo 103 and render in LW[8] + Fprime. (I like LW's renderer much better than C4Ds.) I also like the speed of Sasquatch compared to S&H on C4D (which is almost always broken.)

-K

frostywd
09-30-2005, 09:46 AM
I purchased my G5 2.7 specifically for use with lightwave and over all it's been a 'computer life' changing experience. In the past 4+ months I've been focused on floorplan visualizations and some logo creation so I am sure that OpenGL 2.0 support (or lack there of) by Apple is nothing more of a nucence to me compared to a hinderance that others may experience.

I assume the following of Newtek:

1) When Apple is completly 64 bit then a Mac port will come soon and users of 8.5 and above will be able to take advantage of it.

2) When openGL 2.0 drivers are released ... again, Newtek will update all possible versions.

I believe that NT is doing all they can for the Mac and I also think that Chuck's comments are fact and not an excuse. I will wait. I do think that the openGL updates need to come to the 8.x users - not just the V9 users. I own Modo 102 and it's openGL handling of my floor plan models is so smooth that it has to challenge NT in some way.

Bottom line: I've invested about 6K in hardware, software, tutorials, and plugins and I expect that NT will do all that they need to do to keep me a customer. With minor reservations, I am very pleased so far that I've 'gone over to the dark side (Apple/Mac) and I hope to continue to develope along with LW.


Thanks.

Frosty.

Chuck
09-30-2005, 10:22 AM
I wouldnt even mind a mac development Blog page...
We just want to see activity to see direction the mac team is going so we know progression is being made.

There is one LightWave team that develops both platforms in parallel, so everyone on the team participates in the progress, and the overwhelming majority of LightWave code is platform agnostic. I'll pass your request for more information along, but again I would point out that blogging is not coding, and I think we can all agree that if we want the fastest possible progress then we want coding from the developers full time and with as few interruptions as possible.

It's also the case that while our management and marketing staff from time to time provide general status reports or address particular issues, it has never been the case that NewTek provides day-by-day and blow-by-blow reportage of the activities of the programming staff, and, so far as I am aware, nor do any of our competitors. For a number of reasons that would be counterproductive.


Chuck all appreciated, another thing does newtek see lightwave as the home hobbiest/intermediate 3D app like discussed in siggraph of do you see lightwave pushing for pro market like it once did?

I have no problem paying more for a pro end version or features.

The fact of the matter is that we have always very clearly marketed LightWave as a high-end professional tool, and our SIGGRAPH presentation with folks from many of the award-winning VFX houses continued that effort. The regular press releases that we issue on major film and television productions, and the profiles on our highest end users in film, television, games, print, and other areas all demonstrate this commitment to reaching the professional market.

I think if you review our development white paper and the interview with Jay that accompanies it, you'll see that our development has been geared to recovering from issues that impacted our progress on development a few years back, building a great new team and getting LightWave back to the top of the game, where we can lead the way with innovative features and workflow, and a fresh approach. NewTek's goal is always to create high-quality professional tools - nothing less.

Chuck
09-30-2005, 10:35 AM
so if your waiting for Apple then why can't you be the voice for us and PUSH them...

We have stated very clearly and many times that we are indeed urging Apple to make progress on these issues. This has already been mentioned in this thread, previous to your post.

Chuck
09-30-2005, 11:09 AM
Chuck,

As a former marketing manager myself, I might suggest you focus on what improvements Mac users will see with 8.5. From what I've read today (between yours and Jay's posts) Mac users:
- Won't see 64 bit anything
- Won't see OGL 2.0 anything
- Won't see any speed improvement in OGL redraw
- It's all Apple's fault

You can hardly expect to excite users with that, can you? So lay the good news on us. :) Even if it's a repeat, you should try to inspire those on the mac platform if you want to keep them. If you're just going to publish, "we're marching ahead on Windows and Mac users just have a dumb platform" you're going to get the reaction you've been getting. Mac users *do* have choices . . .

(I'm speaking as someone who's been with you guys since LW first came to the Mac platform.)

-K


Everything else about LightWave 8.5 and v9.0 applies equally to both platforms and we have promoted that information to all LightWave users. A great many Mac users are in fact happy with the feature improvements they can count on for the future, and optimistic that Apple will come through in good time for those issues that are now, for the first time in a long time, creating a disparity between the platforms, and happy as well to know that we are at work on bringing LightWave to XCode, to take advantage of all the performance and capability that can be achieved on the Mac.

Your suggestion sounds as though you feel that when asked about a thorny issue such as this we should practice misdirection rather than answering it directly and honestly. If this is the case, then, respectfully, we must disagree. This thread has a lot of direct questions, we've done our best to answer them with candor, and we feel that candor is what is called for, out of respect for our customers.

I would also observe that your summary of what I or Jay have posted does not seem to me to be by any means a complete or accurate picture of what we've communicated in this thread, let alone in our overall marketing effort. I've reiterated our belief in and respect for the platform several times in this thread, so your characterization of us as publishing that the Mac is a "dumb platform" is without foundation. As for Jay...the head of our 3D Division is a dedicated Mac user of a couple decades standing, and formerly developed solely for the Mac platform.

Rabbitroo
09-30-2005, 11:48 AM
Just a couple cents--I'd like to see NewTek more successful in the Apple marketplace. :yingyang:

-K

jat
09-30-2005, 02:49 PM
yes it was already mentioned, I just wanted to know if there was any resistance that you guys feel from Apple at this time regarding your efforts. Also, at what level does Apple participate in your problem solving - do they send over their engineers to help go through your code, do you send it out them? Is there a high level liason at Apple that is keeping tabs on the issues - how does it work and are they concerned or will they get around to it whenever they think its convenient for them? :thumbsup:

Chuck
09-30-2005, 04:42 PM
Just a couple cents--I'd like to see NewTek more successful in the Apple marketplace. :yingyang:

-K

Please know that I'm taking your comments as the food for thought that you intend, and I'm sure other staff are as well. We do appreciate your taking time to share your reactions on our communications.

archiea
10-03-2005, 07:23 PM
As, myself, one that has often crticized NT on the above issues, I have to say that this recent dialog has clearly stated the present concerns as well as the current limitations to presenting the various solutions. Jay's release was timely considering the delayed release of 8.5. Chuck's responses to the barrage here was also substantial.

I think the PPC-> intel transition is going to delay the full 64 bit relase of OS-X as well as open GL driver issues. Hopefully the intel version of OS-X will be presented as a full 64 bit app along with the open GL issues resolved on Apple's end. I think that not until then can we really put Newtek to task regarding the above stated platform specific issues with mac LW.

Captain Obvious
10-04-2005, 12:38 AM
Hopefully the intel version of OS-X will be presented as a full 64 bit app
The reason Apple are switching is the lack of a good low-energy processor. That means that they're not switching to the 64-bit Pentium 4, but to the 32-bit Pentium M. The first public release of Mac OS X for x86 will be 32-bit only, most likely.

ackees
10-04-2005, 01:57 AM
What I can't understand is how apple and others can get real time performance out of OpenGL (Motion, Maya, Motionbuilder) and NT say they still can't make improvements on the Mac. I have the ageing MB 5.5 and get real time out of it but even now NT still say they cannot achieve it, or anything near.

BazC
10-04-2005, 02:22 AM
I've read that Newtek epect open GL performance in LW9 to be on a par with other Mac apps. Hope so! - Baz

ackees
10-04-2005, 04:46 AM
Which other mac apps? there are good ones and bad ones. The issue seems to be that Mac users really get a cut down version of LW, 3/4th of LW for the full price. I remember seeing Maya doing real time renders on the Mac over a year ago, we get a lot of grand statements about equality across the two platforms but somehow the Mac version is always lagging behind, if it wern't for the fact that there other developers out there getting serious juice out of the Mac platform you would start to believe it was impossible to get any app to work on OSX at full performance.

IgnusFast
10-04-2005, 09:01 AM
One thing I haven't seen addressed is whether or not we'll see ANY improvement in viewport speed on the Mac, even in Lightwave 9.x, let alone 8.5. I understand that OS X is lacking drivers supporting OpenGL 2.0. But what's wrong with OpenGL 1.5 + extensions? Surely if we can't get the procedural texture view, at least we could get hardware accelerated viewport rendering?? It's worked for the rest of the industry for years.

Something is better than nothing...

I realize that I'm a hobbiest, and as such am probably next to nothing in Newtek's eyes. But $400 is a LOT to spend on a hobby (again); 9.0 doesn't sound like much of an improvement in terms of useability, which for me is key. I hate to lose out on the Vue 5 upgrade deal, but right now the purchase is really hard to justify.

Not to mention that looking at what's coming for 9.x, my baby, Modeler, has been COMPLETELY ignored. Great, modeling tools in Layout. Neat. I still say we need more Layout tools in Modeler. :) PLEASE, allow us to create bones and lights in models directly!!!!! I'm begging you!!!!!

Captain Obvious
10-04-2005, 09:11 AM
Mac OS X supports about two thirds of OpenGL 2.0. The main thing that's missing is GLSL, I think. You can't really blame a lack of OpenGL support for the poor viewport performance in Lightwave.

Lightwolf
10-04-2005, 09:17 AM
Surely if we can't get the procedural texture view, at least we could get hardware accelerated viewport rendering?? It's worked for the rest of the industry for years.
openGL _is_ hardware optimized, the problem is that is is optimized for an older generation of hardware.
And, compared to other software, the issue is _exactly_ the same on PCs (leaving out procedurals here), except for the fact that PCs seem to have faster openGL in general.
The _speed_ of openGL is not a Mac only issue, and from what Chuck and Jay Roth wrote, NT is willing to adress viewport speed in 9.0.


Not to mention that looking at what's coming for 9.x, my baby, Modeler, has been COMPLETELY ignored.
Edges, N-Gons, faster SubDs ...most of these have been on users wish lists for a long time. (I agree, I'd prefer to see live spline patches on that list as well ;) ).
I mean, I've done my share of NT bashing, but LW 9.0 seems to really move in the right direction...
Cheers,
Mike

ackees
10-04-2005, 09:18 AM
So why do NT keep doing this to its Mac users, it's clear that you can get better on the Mac.

Lightwolf
10-04-2005, 09:20 AM
So why do NT keep doing this to its Mac users, it's clear that you can get better on the Mac.
You can better on the PC as well ... but we don't whine as much ;)

Cheers,
Mike - sorry, couldn't resist... :p

ackees
10-04-2005, 09:42 AM
Come on Lightwolf be reasonable, quite a number of the new features will not be available to Mac users, LW is marketed on certain improvements, and that becomes the ruler for NT, it's just that each time I lick my lips in anticipation I find the lunch box short of the promised morsel, and NT saying they'll be there next time.

Lightwolf
10-04-2005, 09:54 AM
Come on Lightwolf be reasonable, quite a number of the new features will not be available to Mac users, LW is marketed on certain improvements, and that becomes the ruler for NT, it's just that each time I lick my lips in anticipation I find the lunch box short of the promised morsel, and NT saying they'll be there next time.
ackees, I know, however, two of the major features, that is hardware openGL 2.0 shading and a 64bit version, are not at NTs disposal to decide over.
The current openGL performance is just as abyssmal on a PC (if you compare it to other apps). I don't mind anyone saying faster openGL should be here _now_, I'm just tired of hearing the same old: "This is because NT doesn't support the Mac properly" arguments. NT doesn't support modern openGL properly (and they admit it too, which is grand), now that's more like it ;)
The only thing not at parity with the Mac version are one or two missing plugins as well as (different) major/minor bugs. Hub issues? People have them on both sides of the fence. openGL issues? same again.
Can you blame NT for bugs, features that they have control over? Surely, but the majority of those a cross-platform.
Can you blame them for things that are not within their control? Not really.
I don't think that I'm unreasonable, I'm just trying to put this into a more "neutral" perspective. Sorry if I offended anyone, wasn't my intention.

Cheers,
Mike

ackees
10-04-2005, 10:18 AM
This is what I think is happening (it's not meant to be a gripe); NT have discovered a very good excuse: 'my dog ate my homework', and they have used it repeatedly, 'Apple ate our plans of incredible improvements' (it was going to be the best homework in the class). What the teacher likes is the pupil who despite the hurricane and the flood delivers the homework.

Chuck
10-04-2005, 10:48 AM
What I can't understand is how apple and others can get real time performance out of OpenGL (Motion, Maya, Motionbuilder) and NT say they still can't make improvements on the Mac. I have the ageing MB 5.5 and get real time out of it but even now NT still say they cannot achieve it, or anything near.

That's not what we've said at all. In message number 35 on this thread I stated the exact causes for LightWave's lower performance relative to other applications in OpenGL display speed, confirmed that those issues apply equally to both platforms, and advised that we expect with v9 to be able to provide Mac users with proper OpenGL performance on the Mac, just as the applications you've cited already do. We will be able to give you what every other developer on the Mac would be able to give you, and the only things we will not be able to give are exactly the same things that no one else on the Mac will be able to do either, because the OS does not support those specific things.

Chuck
10-04-2005, 10:52 AM
Which other mac apps? there are good ones and bad ones. The issue seems to be that Mac users really get a cut down version of LW, 3/4th of LW for the full price.


Ackees, my apologies, but I have to wonder if you are reading any of my responses, because you cite us as saying things that we did not say, and you keep insisting on a view of matters that simply is not consistent with the actual case. We achieved feature parity between platforms quite some time ago and have maintained it. It has never been the case that there was any huge disparity in features between platforms, and the minor differences had long since been addressed. The last set of items that needed to be resolved were some missing plugins on the Mac, for which the source code had been misplaced and we were unable to compile them for OS X version; the development team was able to thoroughly search through our archives and backups and finally located and compiled those a couple of years ago, and we have included them in all updates since.

Chuck
10-04-2005, 11:06 AM
This is what I think is happening (it's not meant to be a gripe); NT have discovered a very good excuse: 'my dog ate my homework', and they have used it repeatedly, 'Apple ate our plans of incredible improvements' (it was going to be the best homework in the class). What the teacher likes is the pupil who despite the hurricane and the flood delivers the homework.

What we have actually been stating here, is that for those performance issues where our legacy code and development methods have in any way made any elements of LightWave's performance lag relative to what competing applications on the Mac offer, that code and those methods will be changed out. Our goal is to make LightWave perform second to none on the platform. LightWave is already the clear leader on the platform in price/performance, and we plan to make it the clear leader in performance, period.

ackees
10-04-2005, 11:17 AM
Thanks Chuck. It is disappointing when you read about an improvement only to discover you won't be getting it. Perhaps the answer is to state right up front, we will be doing X in the next update, except for Mac users. But then you fall into negative marketing so I guess you can't.
By the way, The manual for 8 is better than before, better organized somehow, and the PDF is better than the HTML vers.

archiea
10-04-2005, 01:46 PM
The reason Apple are switching is the lack of a good low-energy processor. That means that they're not switching to the 64-bit Pentium 4, but to the 32-bit Pentium M. The first public release of Mac OS X for x86 will be 32-bit only, most likely.


Well.. they need a low energy proc for the powerbooks. I doubt they would cripple the Desktops to maintain parity with the powerbooks. Its completely possible to have 64 bit desktops and 32 bit powerbooks

archiea
10-04-2005, 01:54 PM
Mac OS X supports about two thirds of OpenGL 2.0. The main thing that's missing is GLSL, I think. You can't really blame a lack of OpenGL support for the poor viewport performance in Lightwave.


This was from chucks post:
http://vbulletin.newtek.com/showpost.php?p=302937&postcount=35

As for overall OpenGL performance, LightWave uses custom drawing routines that at one time were advantageous for broader compatibility on a variety of cards including older ones, and for cards with lower RAM than would otherwise be required. They've lost that advantage long since, with the result that for some time now on both platforms LightWave's display performance has not kept up, and the problem is considerably more aggravated on the Mac. I think the dev team had hoped to include some of the changes that have been worked on in that regard in 8.5, but it looks like that work was not sufficiently complete to include in 8.5, while the hardware shader first generation implementation was. So as nearly as I can tell, at least the majority of the performance improvements on OpenGL due to replacement of our older routines with newer state-of-the-art approaches that gain the advantages of the current hardware will be part of the 9.0 update. All elements of those changes that apply to whatever level of support is current in OS X at the time v9 is released will apply to both platforms. We do expect that LightWave OpenGL performance on the Mac will be equal to other applications on the Mac at that point.

Like I've said before.. I;ve been one of NT's biggest critics, but Chuck and NT have really gone to great lengths in this thread to explain someof the problems. The above quote was new infor for me, and it goes really far in explaining the perfromance issues that LW has from NT's end.

nikturnal
10-04-2005, 06:19 PM
Chuck I would like to start off by saying that I have a great deal of respect for you and the NT staff for giving us such a powerful application at an unbeatable price. That being said, I have to agree with a few people in this thread for the disappointment that us mac users will not be seeing the improvements that our PC neighbors will. I have been anxiously checking this site daily in hopes that the 8.5 update has been uploaded. After months of anticipation I now read that update won't be as good for us mac users. If I had heard this the week of Sigraph or at the time of the 8.5 announcement, I would have known what to expect and hopes for the arrival of the update would not have been so high. Its kind of like being a little kid on Christmas and having your parents tell you "were getting you a puppy" only to wake up Dec 25th and find that it was the neighbors that got the new dog. A big disappointment that could have easily been avoided. I also just read above where you stated (we expect for the OpenGL improvements to be available in v9). I hope that if the improvements don't make the deadline, we will be notified of this before we purchase. I realize that sh*t happens and most of the time this is out of your/NT's control. However you should not be surprised that some of us are disappointed. One question that I have for you (Which I think is a fair one for you to answer to your consumers); How many staff members do you have working on the PC side of LW and how many are dedicated to the Mac side? I don't mean to flame this forum any more than it has already been, but I think this is an honest question. I appologize if this question has been already asked but as you can imagine no working person has enough time to read every post in every forum. I want to finish by saying again, I appreciate all the hard work NT has been doing to keep LW at the top of its game.

nikturnal
10-04-2005, 06:48 PM
One more question Chuck, I just noticed if you go to the pc section of NT forum and look at their 8.3 bugs list, its only two pages long. How come the Mac bugs list is five pages? I doubt its because us Mac users like to gripe more often than PC users. Could be wrong though cause I know I like to gripe when the scales seem to be tipped. :D

JackDeL
10-04-2005, 07:06 PM
What we have actually been stating here, is that for those performance issues where our legacy code and development methods have in any way made any elements of LightWave's performance lag relative to what competing applications on the Mac offer, that code and those methods will be changed out. Our goal is to make LightWave perform second to none on the platform. LightWave is already the clear leader on the platform in price/performance, and we plan to make it the clear leader in performance, period.

Thanks Chuck, thats music to my ears! :beerchug:

dfc
10-05-2005, 12:08 AM
I've only got one thing to say...OBOD.

Chuck
10-06-2005, 02:55 PM
Chuck I would like to start off by saying that I have a great deal of respect for you and the NT staff for giving us such a powerful application at an unbeatable price. That being said, I have to agree with a few people in this thread for the disappointment that us mac users will not be seeing the improvements that our PC neighbors will. I have been anxiously checking this site daily in hopes that the 8.5 update has been uploaded. After months of anticipation I now read that update won't be as good for us mac users. If I had heard this the week of Sigraph or at the time of the 8.5 announcement, I would have known what to expect and hopes for the arrival of the update would not have been so high. Its kind of like being a little kid on Christmas and having your parents tell you "were getting you a puppy" only to wake up Dec 25th and find that it was the neighbors that got the new dog. A big disappointment that could have easily been avoided. I also just read above where you stated (we expect for the OpenGL improvements to be available in v9). I hope that if the improvements don't make the deadline, we will be notified of this before we purchase. I realize that sh*t happens and most of the time this is out of your/NT's control. However you should not be surprised that some of us are disappointed. One question that I have for you (Which I think is a fair one for you to answer to your consumers); How many staff members do you have working on the PC side of LW and how many are dedicated to the Mac side? I don't mean to flame this forum any more than it has already been, but I think this is an honest question. I appologize if this question has been already asked but as you can imagine no working person has enough time to read every post in every forum. I want to finish by saying again, I appreciate all the hard work NT has been doing to keep LW at the top of its game.

Hi, Nikturnal!

I can understand your frustrations with the differences in the 8.5 OpenGL features in 8.5, and the unavailability of a 64-bit port. Mac users certainly deserve parity in the applications, and we will most certainly provide as soon as the OS allows. As for when these things were first mentioned, we've been very clear since we began publicizing the 64-bit port nearly a year ago, as have other 3D developers, that we would only be able to provide a Windows 64-bit port until such time as the Mac OS offers 64-bit GUI support. The information regarding the OpenGL features was explicit in the stated requirement for OpenGL 2.0 support including GLSL, since Apple has openly documented that the current OS X support is OpenGL 1.5 with some elements from 2.0 but not including GLSL. As I mentioned earlier in the thread, many Mac users reviewed our specs and Apple's specs and so understood this immediately as being the case, and publicly asked for confirmation and we openly discussed this with them in a number of threads here and on other forums during and following SIGGRAPH. We stated the requirements specifically so that all users would understand the situation with respect to their specific equipment.

As also mentioned previously in this thread in message 46, all our developers are working on both platforms. Many of our developers have long experience on both platforms and in multi-platform development.

As for the general OpenGL performance improvements that the team had hoped to have in place for 8.5 but which required further work and so will have to be part of v9, yes, if there were some issue that would cause them not to be available in the v9.0 release, then we would certainly let folks know by correcting the feature list. I wouldn't expect any issue to be capable of causing such a change though. On the other hand, "...aft gang aglay." ;)

As to getting the info before you purchase, in that case you would wish to wait until the release. We would be unlikely to make any changes to the preliminary information on the site until we are at release time.


One more question Chuck, I just noticed if you go to the pc section of NT forum and look at their 8.3 bugs list, its only two pages long. How come the Mac bugs list is five pages? I doubt its because us Mac users like to gripe more often than PC users. Could be wrong though cause I know I like to gripe when the scales seem to be tipped. :D

To my observation, the majority of the PC users actually just use the General Support forum and report all bugs they encounter, including those that may be specific to the PC, in the Bug Workshop thread there, which is 15 pages long at the moment.

nikturnal
10-06-2005, 04:10 PM
Well said. Sorry for making you repeat yourself.

Rabbitroo
10-06-2005, 06:28 PM
Its kind of like being a little kid on Christmas and having your parents tell you "were getting you a puppy" only to wake up Dec 25th and find that it was the neighbors that got the new dog.

I don't think the neighbors are getting their puppy before Twelfth Night. ;)

Maybe if we're real good we might get a puppy (or 4/5ths of a puppy--after all, our house lacks puppy-friendly features :rolleyes: ) by Groundhog's Day or Memmorial Day at the latest! Definitely by Labor day, we promise!

Being in the LW Mac community largely means making do with what we're given. If we wanted faster feature development, we should've gone to C4D. :lol:

-K

:lightwave

Chuck
10-07-2005, 10:20 AM
The necessity to rebuild the development team did introduce some delay in the advancement of LightWave 3D, and we can certainly understand the frustration this has had for many users. In reviewing progress since the work on the 8.0 revision commenced, however, we would observe that in developing and releasing that ordinal update the team accomplished an incredible amount of work within that timeframe, and producing five incremental updates with new features while addressing literally hundreds of legacy issues in just over a year since the 8.0 release is terrific progress by any standard. The new development team is clearly demonstrating that LightWave will take a backseat to no other application when it comes to rapid advancement and innovation.

Rabbitroo
10-07-2005, 11:09 AM
:lightwave . . . . . . . . . . .

Celshader
10-07-2005, 11:38 AM
Backseat to no one? Good god! Do you not bother to do competitive analysis? You're modeler barely supports edges!

...and Maya supposedly lacks a useful bevel tool (http://forums.cgsociety.org/showpost.php?p=2707055&postcount=404). Nobody's perfect. ;)

Chuck
10-07-2005, 12:04 PM
And you, Rabbitroo, are choosing to make an issue with NewTek out of what no 3D developer can give the Mac until Apple changes the OS. We've said many times and very clearly in this thread that we do understand the performance issues that are not dependent on any thing further from Apple but are dependent only on us, and we've made it clear that those are being addressed for LightWave v9.

We discussed a lot of things at SIGGRAPH that will be in 8.5 for both platforms and in v9.0 for both platforms. There's also a lot more that we haven't let out of the bag yet, and every bit of that applies to both platforms as well. Some elements of what we intend to accomplish for v9 are indeed to provide tools that already exist in other applications, but our intent is to make our versions of those tools an improvement over other implementations, just as we did with the UV subpatch compensation tools that provide the user flexible controls that exist in no other application. Other elements of what we intend to accomplish are things no one else offers yet. Taken together, yes, the very fast progess in the 8.x series and the changes for v9 should indeed give the clear message that we do not intend to take a backseat to anyone in rapid advancement and innovation. The team is working hard to insure that LightWave users can be secure that they've made the best investment in the 3D market. Where we have to catch up, we will, and we will expend every creative and research effort to find areas in which we can bring LightWave to a leadership position.

As for my comments on the now-closed thread, I was trying to take with reasonable humor what was clearly not intended with any humor, and which seemed to be clearly out of place to direct at NewTek development given that NewTek was not the source of the comment that seemed to have upset you. Apologies if that was not clear to you.

Rabbitroo
10-07-2005, 12:09 PM
...and Maya supposedly lacks a useful bevel tool (http://forums.cgsociety.org/showpost.php?p=2707055&postcount=404). Nobody's perfect. ;)

Maya's Bevel works for me. I like Modo's better though . . . VertiBevel is pretty cool for LW.

If we wanted to go feature by feature, I'd hate to point out all the animator things we use that LW 8.3 is lacking compared to Maya 7 or the modeller features it's missing compared to Modo. But then, Chuck would ban my *** for insulting LW's dev team . . .

I just find the "backseat to no one" chest-beating inane when there are such significant gaps in basic tech (like OGL perfromance.) I love LW and it's render, but I'm not willing the fight the battle to defend it anymore.

:p

Chuck
10-07-2005, 12:24 PM
If we wanted to go feature by feature, I'd hate to point out all the animator things we use that LW 8.3 is lacking compared to Maya 7 or the modeller features it's missing compared to Modo. But then, Chuck would ban my *** for insulting LW's dev team . . .

I just find the "backseat to no one" chest-beating inane when there are such significant gaps in basic tech (like OGL perfromance.)
:p

My messages have all made very clear that we are indeed aware of the places where LightWave needs improvement to match other tools. I'm simply saying that the new team has shown with the work it has done so far that we are not only aware of these issues but making great progress at getting them addressed. I did not say we were currently the best, I said we are not content to rest until LightWave takes a backseat to no other application. I've tried every way possible to put that so as to encourage those reading here. Apologies that I don't seem to be making any progress.

Rabbitroo
10-07-2005, 12:25 PM
:lightwave . . . . . . . . .

Rabbitroo
10-07-2005, 12:31 PM
:lightwave . . . . . . . . . . .

Celshader
10-07-2005, 12:51 PM
In the mean time, your competitors are not standing still.

**** straight -- Alias just got gobbled (http://usa.autodesk.com/adsk/servlet/index?id=5970886&siteID=123112) by Autodesk. ;)

Rabbitroo
10-07-2005, 01:28 PM
:lightwave :lwicon:

Celshader
10-07-2005, 01:30 PM
FUD--Is that the basis for NewTek to win? :)

I don't know. What does "FUD" mean? :confused:

Rabbitroo
10-07-2005, 01:57 PM
I don't know. What does "FUD" mean? :confused:
Fear-Uncertainty-Doubt. It's an old-fashioned selling & marketing technique where you sew confusion about your competition.

Here's what wiki sez: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FUD

Here's a some more on the Alias-Autodesk thing:
http://www.highend3d.com/articles/columns/4.html

Doesn't have much to do with LW on the Mac methinks.

-K


:I_Love_Ne

loki74
10-09-2005, 06:42 PM
Doesn't have much to do with LW on the Mac methinks.

...on the contrary--I think it means that NT will have better luck with us Mac users. IIRC Autodesk isn't Mac friendly, and the recent corprate move just makes me that much more glad I chose Lightwave.

I'm just sad that I probably wont be enjoying the 64-bit for a very long time... I mean, if youre using a PowerPC model, you're stuck on 32-bit, right? I don't think I'll be able to afford an x86 64-bit Mac when it comes out, especially given that I've owned my G5 for less than a year. I could pretty easily put together a 64-bit enabled PC, but I have a Mac LW license, and I would sooner die than switch back to windows. (well, maybe thats a bit exaggerated, but you get the point). ...will I be able to have OGL2 once Apple allows for it? Or is that also reliant on 64-bit or x86, or otherwise PowerPC incompatable?

Regarding the general topic of NT and Mac... I would SO totally love to see some very very very very basic UI enhancements... like use of normal menus in the OSX menubar (but I also like the ones on the side). I think that the Lightwave vX thing looks very slick, and IMO its UI concepts are easily adaptable to be Mac-user-friendly. I really also wish that Apple would let other developers use its ProKit framework--that would look VERY slick on LW if you ask me... unfortunately there is literally nothing NT can do about that. But it would be cool if it were possible.

Great job, NewTek--keep it up.

Captain Obvious
10-10-2005, 12:18 AM
loki, it's not he PowerPC that's not 64-bit. The G5 is entirely 64-bit. You can run a 64-bit Linux or whatever on it. It's Mac OS X that's not 64-bit, and that probably won't change because of the move to x86.

loki74
10-10-2005, 06:53 PM
loki, it's not he PowerPC that's not 64-bit. The G5 is entirely 64-bit. You can run a 64-bit Linux or whatever on it. It's Mac OS X that's not 64-bit, and that probably won't change because of the move to x86.

*slaps forehead* right!! I KNEW that!! In fact, that may have been one of the selling points as far as me switching!! (goes in corner with cone hat and feels stupid)

lol.

gerry_g
10-11-2005, 09:31 AM
It's Mac OS X that's not 64-bit, and that probably won't change because of the move to x86.

This is what's pissing me off the most too, it looks like the whole 64bit thing will be time shifted now till after the transition, we'll all end up buying 32bit x86 versions of our aps. only to replace them with 64bit versions within the span of a year and that's gonna cost.
On the OS issue, I think you're partially wrong about it being strictly 32bit, it's kind of pseudo 64bit, Mathematica can crunch some stuff 64bit and Photoshop CS2 can address up to 8Gigs of ram, I have six installed and it regularly chomps through five and a half of them, so what I have to ask myself here is why can't Lightwave ? are you listening Dev team !!

fxgeek
10-11-2005, 09:38 AM
This is what's pissing me off the most too, it looks like the whole 64bit thing will be time shifted now till after the transition, we'll all end up buying 32bit x86 versions of our aps.

We don't know that's the case. Apple haven't released ANY details on what the final shipping hardware will be or what CPU's they're going to use.

BeeVee
10-11-2005, 09:38 AM
Speaking for the dev team, that's not enough. It wouldn't even be enough to make Screamernet 64-bit, because after all, how are you going to make the scenes that require 64-bit in a 32-bit version? Until Mac OSX is *completely* 64-bit, there's no way that LightWave can be.

B
PS. The Windows 64-bit version of LightWave is free of charge (regardless of media costs), and I certainly expect the Mac OSX version will be as well.

fxgeek
10-11-2005, 09:44 AM
Speaking for the dev team, that's not enough. It wouldn't even be enough to make Screamernet 64-bit, because after all, how are you going to make the scenes that require 64-bit in a 32-bit version? Until Mac OSX is *completely* 64-bit, there's no way that LightWave can be.

B
PS. The Windows 64-bit version of LightWave is free of charge (regardless of media costs), and I certainly expect the Mac OSX version will be as well.

Im confused, If other Apps can use 8gigs of Memory, by using the special G5 libraries, and while not being true 64bit, are atr least able to take advantage of the G5, why is NT saying that it can't be done because of the OS. I understand that you cant make a full 64bit version, but why not use the memory and enhanced maths libraries ?

BeeVee
10-11-2005, 09:47 AM
Mac LightWave can already make use of a lot more memory than a 32-bit Windows machine.

B

Lightwolf
10-11-2005, 10:05 AM
I understand that you cant make a full 64bit version, but why not use the memory and enhanced maths libraries ?
Probably because this can only be done with XCode ... and LW needs to be ported to make use of it (as do a couple of other, 'older' Mac 3D apps as well, like C4D).
That in turn would mean giving up plugin compatibility, not really something you like to do in a point release.
As for the memory issue: Again, for a point release it doesn't make much sense since it (even if there was an XCode port) would probably mean re-designing parts of the app ... which would be worthwhile if Apple don't have a roadmap toward a full 64bit system in the immediate future. As they seem to have a full 64bit system in the future, I'd consider it a waste of ressources.

Cheers,
Mike

gerry_g
10-11-2005, 10:05 AM
Mac LightWave can already make use of a lot more memory than a 32-bit Windows machine.

Would love to see your evidence for usage greater than 2Gigs, I check active monitor quite often to see how well Lightwave is performing and I've never gotten it above 1.5 let alone 2Gigs, I don't think it's set up like that.

JML
10-11-2005, 10:59 AM
Would love to see your evidence for usage greater than 2Gigs, I check active monitor quite often to see how well Lightwave is performing and I've never gotten it above 1.5 let alone 2Gigs, I don't think it's set up like that.

here is an example,

I use XP (32bit) at work and at home with 2 or more Gb ram, I mostly can have scene up to 3-4 million polys Max, then I get lots of memory problem.

on OSX, co worker can have scene up to 7 million and it renders fine.

Captain Obvious
10-11-2005, 11:13 AM
This is what's pissing me off the most too, it looks like the whole 64bit thing will be time shifted now till after the transition, we'll all end up buying 32bit x86 versions of our aps. only to replace them with 64bit versions within the span of a year and that's gonna cost.
On the OS issue, I think you're partially wrong about it being strictly 32bit, it's kind of pseudo 64bit, Mathematica can crunch some stuff 64bit and Photoshop CS2 can address up to 8Gigs of ram, I have six installed and it regularly chomps through five and a half of them, so what I have to ask myself here is why can't Lightwave ? are you listening Dev team !!
I seriously doubt that NewTek and the like will charge extra once the 64-bit versions are out. And yes, it's somewhat 64-bit. Some core APIs are 64-bit. Mathematica, for example, can be run entirely from the command line. It uses only core APIs. It can be entirely 64-bit, just as much as a 64-bit Linux or Windows version. However, if you want to use high-level APIs, like Carbon, OpenGL or QuickTime, you need to be in 32-bit space. You can't really build a good 3D application that doesn't use OpenGL.

As for the 2 gigabyte RAM roof, Mac OS X has never had that. ANY application in 10.0 to 10.3 could use 4 gigabytes of RAM, including Lightwave. In Tiger, this is now 8 gigabytes, but that's a hardware limit (you can't fit more than 8 gigabytes into any currently shipping Mac). I don't know how high the software limit is, but I think it's higher. Lightwave of any version can most likely assign up to 8 gigabytes in 10.4. The 2 gigabyte limit is just a Windows thing.

Lightwolf
10-11-2005, 12:40 PM
As for the 2 gigabyte RAM roof, Mac OS X has never had that. ANY application in 10.0 to 10.3 could use 4 gigabytes of RAM, including Lightwave. In Tiger, this is now 8 gigabytes, but that's a hardware limit (you can't fit more than 8 gigabytes into any currently shipping Mac). I don't know how high the software limit is, but I think it's higher. Lightwave of any version can most likely assign up to 8 gigabytes in 10.4. The 2 gigabyte limit is just a Windows thing.
Well, the 4GB limit is the hard limit for _any_ 32bit app. Even under windows apps can use up to 3GB of the 4GB of available RAM if coded properly. I don't know if LW 8.5 supports that in win32 yet...
Anything beyond the 4GB limit will require special coding (for both, OSX as well as Windows, which supports more than 4GB through some other tricks) if used from a 32bit app.
For a 64bit app of course handling more than 4GB is easy and doesn't reqiure any special, 64bit specific, coding (except to make sure the app is 64bit safe).
Cheers,
Mike

Captain Obvious
10-11-2005, 01:09 PM
So, how do they use more than 4 gigs in Photoshop? Do they use a "swap in the RAM" method, or something else?

Lightwolf
10-11-2005, 01:13 PM
So, how do they use more than 4 gigs in Photoshop? Do they use a "swap in the RAM" method, or something else?
Yupp, basically. 64bit _file_ pointers handled by the app (i.e. manually programmed). The OS may use extra RAM to cache parts of the file making the RAM usage (due to the file) quite transparent to the app. Not nearly as efficient as having a flat 64bit memory space though. You have to really know what kind of data to treat as a 64bit file.
This would be a pain to do in LW...
Cheers,
Mike

Brian Redoutey
10-11-2005, 09:10 PM
Thought I'd drop by and see how LW 8.5 is going. OpenGL rewrites or neot etc... not looking to star a flamewar so I'll just state my observations when pushign LW as hard as I ever could. And hopefully that will clear up the guess work and questions on where the code base is at from a users perspective.

LW 7.5d on OS X 10.3.x can go all teh way to 3.8 GB's of RAM. Past that I don't know becuase that's as far as I tried to push it. I tried diong this on a tutorial rendering over a year ago. I set the resolution to something utterly insane, segments for rendering the frame got to somehwer around 150. I did this just to try it, I thought it would crash out or have a kernel panic, whatever. It was in the midrange of .x updates with Panther if I remember correctly. To my UTTER and EXTREME amazement, after it paged to Virtual memory for something like 10 minutes straight (I only have 1 gig of RAM) I watched in the Activity Monitor's stats. The VM chunk for it shot up to 3.8 Ggigs, thsi is way past 2 gigs everyone thinks it's tied to. IN fact it pretty much ate the entire 32 bit address space. And this is how i knew that I could push it just as hard in the windows side with Fprime. So yes under OS X 10.3, NOT Tiger or Jaguar, it ate an entire 32 bit address space allocation.

Now for why this actually worked. OS X 10.3 is set for 64 gigs of RAM, virutal or real. Obviously the most it will see is 8 gigs in current machines for real RAM. OS X 10.3 IS NOT fully 64 bit compliant only 36 bit, obviously the hardware is 64 bit. I don't know what parts are and aren't, but I'd guess the kernel is. I do know that the parts invovled are AT LEAST 36 bit, it was actually in print on apples site somewhere over a year ago when I was investigating the purchsae of a new system. This 'hack' enables the system to soehow see a max of 64 gigs of RAM, NOT the full 64 bit address space. However. This works thorugh having the kernel do it. As in the kernel can see 36 bit address space, and thusly can give an entire 32 bit address space to ANY app. And seeing how all the apps goign are 32 bit, any app could take advantage of this if coded correctly. this secnario doesn't exist in windows though. And yes very easily in theory (haven't tried it, dont' know) you could launch multiple apps that eat entire 32 bit address space after entire 32 bit address space, becuase the kernel can see more than 4 gigs and thus fork out 32 bit address spaces left and right. I haven't ried this though. In theory it would work. I don't want my system thrashing this hard and I'm not buying 8 gigs of RAM so I'm not finding out.

THe reason why you can do this in panther is beucase the G5 chip is a fully 64 bit chip. I"ve never tried it in Tiger. I doubt it'll work with a G4 chip. Software can't use what isn't in teh hardware.

Now the windows side of this mess. I foudn this all out thorugh my adventure with FPrime trying to render an image at 10750 by 7166. Yes this is waaay beyond the 2 gig limit. Fprime 1.0.2 then 1.5, LW 7.5 on WinXP Pro.

I did a whole boatload of research and found out winxp out of the box only handles 32 bit address space, FOR THE ENTIRE SYSTEM. When it boots and loads up the kernel it splits the address space up 50/50, XP itself gets 2 GB, and apps you're running get 2 GB. If you run an app that eats 1.5 gb and then one that eats 800 megs, one of them will crash out. The ONLY way around this is to do the /3GB boot loader switch in the .ini boot loader config file (people runing 'really big' databases such sa SQL also like this switch). It flips the kernel mode to only have 1 gig for XP and 3 gigs for the apps. But you're still running everything in 1 single 32 bit address space. I read a post on here long long ago when I was finding this all out about someone modifying LightWave to soemhow have LightWavve access more than 2 GB of RAM. At this point i wasn't sure it would work, but i suspected it would after I pushed it all way to 3.8 gigs on the equivalent mac build. (yes I was essentially giving it as much RAM sa i could to get it to render with Fprime at that resolution) so after wandering various bits of the net I found out how the image process header works in win32 land and found out how to 'change' the marker on an app. So I did so and everything worked out. I did have to use an 'alternate' saver though in teh end.

So that's the end of my grand adventure tyring to render something the size of a small wall. The above is what i learned. Wondering if Newtek will mess with this post. I'm not looking to offend anyone, just clear up all the misinformation and guessing about the address space limits. And yes obviously winxp sucks eggs at it.

AS for all the comments about GLSL, I think that's the acronym for it. I find it acceptable in Maya on my Mac(though it barely works). I would imagine that they did special coding to make it work through openGl extensions (pretty sure that's how they got doom3 to work on non opengl 2.0 compliant cards, as in a geforce 4 titanium series or my Radeon card) though it wouldn't be all that easy. I do admit i'm not an expert in OpenGL and I may be mistaking this for something else, though i do belive it's hardware shading in realtime. And if it is what i think it is (hardware shading in realtime) you need a workstation class video card (Nvidia Quadro or 3dLabs wildcat or ATI fireGL) and the correct OpenGL code, which don't exist on the mac currently, to make it work correctly and acceptably. It's meant as a quick and dirty preview method.

mac config as follows : DP 2ghz, stock ATI Radeon 9600 Pro 64 MB, 1 gig CAS 2.5 DDR 400 RAM, RevA system. drive size is pointless.

Brian Redoutey
10-11-2005, 09:33 PM
One other quick tidbit of info. If you're goign tot ry anything as insane as what i did. backup your drives, seriously. back up your drives. teh Fprime render had teh sysem page for 5 minuts straight, this is a great way to have a drive crash. I backed up everything on the windows side with Ghost before I did anything. THe mac side I did not and luckily after tha tmuch paging, nothing broke, only did it once though. DO AT YOUR OWN RISK.

Ade
10-12-2005, 01:40 AM
So the mac 8.5 release sux....
Didnt take advantage of all the support the pc got.

Darth Mole
10-12-2005, 01:54 AM
I think 'sux' is a bit harsh. There are other features and bug fixes included beyond OGL previews and 64-bit - the non-appearance of which Chuck has stated, on numerous occasions, are beyond their control.

Is 8.5 better overall than 8.3? It is here.

gerry_g
10-12-2005, 03:54 AM
So the mac 8.5 release sux....

The **** it sucks (my favorite word, always gets trashed by the site prudes..........sigh!!), for some one who's griped so long and so hard about this bug and that, griping about the fixes seems a little choice, just go model and enjoy yourself, there are some simple but nice improvements here, 'create poly' now automatically deselects the points after the poly's created, not a blockbuster, but a nice touch all the same.

Ade
10-12-2005, 05:43 PM
I think 'sux' is a bit harsh. There are other features and bug fixes included beyond OGL previews and 64-bit - the non-appearance of which Chuck has stated, on numerous occasions, are beyond their control.

Is 8.5 better overall than 8.3? It is here.

OK it doesnt suck, it just sums up macintosh in a 3d world.....Half assed.

AaronKent
10-15-2005, 09:18 PM
Is there a specific department at Apple that users could direct their email regarding hopes of a full 64-bit OS. I posted at the apple forums a couple times since I found out about the apple 64-bit situation, but I'm wondering if Newtek has an "in" somewhere or at least knows the best way to petition Apple into getting on with the olde 64 bit inevitable.

Aaron Kent

Darth Mole
10-16-2005, 10:12 AM
OK it doesnt suck, it just sums up macintosh in a 3d world.....Half assed.

Boy, there's no talking to you in this mood :)

I'm sat here rendering in LW away quite happily. Maybe nine-tenths assed; half-assed is way too little a s s. And hey, remember OS X isn't even five years old yet. It'll happen. PCs have been around with mature 3D apps for a long time...

Ade
10-17-2005, 06:38 PM
Apples more interested in releasing lifestyle devices these days than taking care of the pro market.

The 8.5 release on macs was almost uneventful due to osx limitations, nothing that couldnt have been done in a 8.3b release.

Johnny
10-17-2005, 06:44 PM
well, that tears it, then...

the only thing left for us all to do is get a bottle of scotch to drown our sorrows and prepare to shove all our Mac hardware off a cliff where it can return to the soil from whence it came...

J

IgnusFast
10-17-2005, 07:02 PM
Apples more interested in releasing lifestyle devices these days than taking care of the pro market.

The 8.5 release on macs was almost uneventful due to osx limitations, nothing that couldnt have been done in a 8.3b release.

You can blame some things on Apple, but the fact that Newtek hasn't been able to eliminate it's internal UI rendering routines and at least use OpenGL 1.5 isn't Apple's fault. The new shader support is neat, but it's too unstable, and too many of the procedurals are missing to make it really useful anyway. I would rather have had that work gone into the app itself (especially Modeler).

Now, the fact that OS X doesn't support full 64-bit apps... Nuthin Newtek can do about that. :)

Captain Obvious
10-18-2005, 12:05 AM
The lack of a 64-bit version matters much less for Mac users. Our Lightwave can already use four gigabytes of RAM. With some doohickying, NewTek could increase that to eight gigabytes. You can't really put more RAM than that into a computer nowadays anyway, so I really don't see why this is such a big problem. Apple will release a fully 64-bit some day, and when they do, NewTek can release a 64-bit Lightwave for it. It doesn't really matter yet.

3dworks
10-18-2005, 04:17 AM
Apples more interested in releasing lifestyle devices these days than taking care of the pro market.

The 8.5 release on macs was almost uneventful due to osx limitations, nothing that couldnt have been done in a 8.3b release.

well, we will see what apple has to announce this wednesday... probably dual core powermacs (http://www.thinksecret.com/news/0510power.html) with pci-express cards! maybe support for the complete opengl 2 feature set is near. ...and just imagine 10 ghz of OSX processing power in one box :)

ok, it's late, but never too late...

as fot the las LW release, i agree, also my .5 expectations are a bit deceived, but probably there are quite a lot of code optimizations happening under the hood. at least the 'standard' opengl performance with huge scenes in layout is definitely much better now.

dukestreet
10-19-2005, 10:49 AM
well, we will see what apple has to announce this wednesday... probably dual core powermacs (http://www.thinksecret.com/news/0510power.html) with pci-express cards! maybe support for the complete opengl 2 feature set is near.


So they're here - Dual Core Dual CPU PowerMac G5s - nice machines -

but I have a serious question concerning the future of Lightwave on a Mac. It seems that this point, it will be the last G5 upgrade we're going to see in the PowerMacs. The next version of the PowerMac will have an Intel chip(s).

What happens then with Lightwave and future versions of Lightwave? Should I buy a new machine today, install Lightwave and not worry about it being forced get a new machine again in less than a year if I want to upgrade Lightwave, or will there continue to be G5 versions of Lightwave always available.

I'm sorry if this has been discussed elsewhere, but a search didn't bring up anything.

thanks,

D

Darth Mole
10-19-2005, 11:34 AM
I doubt very much that every single Mac owner will ditch their G5s and buy an Intel machine on day one. So NewTek would be pretty crazy not to support the PPC version for some time to come (and possibly for years). After all, once they've moved over to Xcode, it /seems/ a relatively straightforward thing to compile both versions.

Also, when people DO sell their G5s, there's going to be a bunch of new users with PPC machines...

dukestreet
10-19-2005, 12:07 PM
I doubt very much that every single Mac owner will ditch their G5s and buy an Intel machine on day one. So NewTek would be pretty crazy not to support the PPC version for some time to come (and possibly for years). After all, once they've moved over to Xcode, it /seems/ a relatively straightforward thing to compile both versions.

Also, when people DO sell their G5s, there's going to be a bunch of new users with PPC machines...

Oh, I understand that - but what concerns me is not support in terms of making sure older/legacy versions continue to run, but that the new versions also run on the G5.

I don't know enough about the hardware changes required in going to Intel chips, that's why I was asking. And if its a more robust 64bit OS that comes along with the Intel, would that mean we'd see 64bit versions of Lightwave on Macs?

D

archiea
10-19-2005, 06:38 PM
Hey Chuck, I'm curious about this piece of info, specifically the third noted feature ...

http://www.cgchannel.com/news/viewfeature.jsp?newsid=4550

"64bit operating environment"

Much was discussed in this thread regarding what Apple promises to be a 64bit operating system and what is actually delivered. Is this a new patch to the OS? Was this the missing link to getting 64bit aps on the mac?


On a different subjedt, it seems that apple has a specific upgrade section to help sell folks on the notion that you should get a mac desktop now and not wait for the intel mac...
http://www.apple.com/powermac/upgrade.html





http://www.apple.com/powermac/upgrade.html

archiea
10-19-2005, 06:42 PM
I doubt very much that every single Mac owner will ditch their G5s and buy an Intel machine on day one. So NewTek would be pretty crazy not to support the PPC version for some time to come (and possibly for years). After all, once they've moved over to Xcode, it /seems/ a relatively straightforward thing to compile both versions.

Also, when people DO sell their G5s, there's going to be a bunch of new users with PPC machines...


Good point, but wil the PPC version of LW have 64 bit support? Assuming that the macintel version did, would be dumb if Apple didn't at least do that.

In a way we are asking newtek "what is apple up to". While I think their crystal ball is a little bit better than ours, its still a crystal ball...

archiea
10-19-2005, 07:45 PM
loki, it's not he PowerPC that's not 64-bit. The G5 is entirely 64-bit. You can run a 64-bit Linux or whatever on it. It's Mac OS X that's not 64-bit, and that probably won't change because of the move to x86.


This sums up the discussion on this thread quite succinctly. I just hate web pages liek this that makes it wound like 64bit apps are the norm for mac....

http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/64bit/

http://developer.apple.com/macosx/64bit.html

Once LW is fully in Xcode, does this mean that we can get LW in 64 bits? Thismakes the new hardware more tempting... It also makes this more tempting... :compbeati

archiea
10-19-2005, 07:47 PM
I found this footnote..is this the achilles heal of apple 64 bit?

"It is important to note that in Tiger, the support for 64-bit programming does not extend throughout the entire set of APIs available on Mac OS X. Most notably, the Cocoa and Carbon GUI application frameworks are not ready for 64-bit programming. In practical terms, this means that the "heavy lifting" of an application that needs 64-bit support can be done by a background process which communicates with a front-end 32-bit GUI process via a variety of mechanisms including IPC and shared memory."

jat
10-19-2005, 08:24 PM
archiea are you looking to buy a new machine or just examining the facts right now?

dukestreet
10-19-2005, 08:28 PM
Good point, but wil the PPC version of LW have 64 bit support? Assuming that the macintel version did, would be dumb if Apple didn't at least do that.

In a way we are asking newtek "what is apple up to". While I think their crystal ball is a little bit better than ours, its still a crystal ball...

That's basically what I'm concerned about - it seems, though, that there are more questions than answers and what's on Apple's site is more like double speak than anything useful.

With the new PowerMacs out and the plan to go with Intel next year or so, it seems to me that the crystal ball is anything but crystal clear.

D

archiea
10-20-2005, 05:04 AM
archiea are you looking to buy a new machine or just examining the facts right now?


Both... I have a dual 800 G4, need I say more? I was waiting for the last G5 to ride out the mac intel wait. Like all mac hardware, its best to buy the new stuff about a year after they are annouced... look at the new iMac for example....

They whole 64bit/openGL2.0 gave me pause, but I think the quad G5 alone would give me a tremendous jump from what I currently have, along with the many other apps outside of LW that I have. Plus the new Aperture app is right up my alley. It just that it would be nice to have LW take full advantage of the hardware. As you can see, I keep my gear for some time....

One small glimmer of hope was now the [32] designation that 8.5 has on the top menu bar... which make me daydream that there is an 8.5[64] sitting in someone's machine in beta land..... :D

ingo
10-20-2005, 08:37 AM
Who cares about a 64Bit lightWave on the Mac, just curious, what do you expect from a 64Bit LW compared to a 32Bit LW ? The interface won't get any better with 64Bit nor does Antialiasing ;)

IgnusFast
10-20-2005, 11:44 AM
Who cares about a 64Bit lightWave on the Mac, just curious, what do you expect from a 64Bit LW compared to a 32Bit LW ? The interface won't get any better with 64Bit nor does Antialiasing ;)

Use of 8GB of RAM on a G5, for one...

archiea
10-20-2005, 11:53 AM
Who cares about a 64Bit lightWave on the Mac, just curious, what do you expect from a 64Bit LW compared to a 32Bit LW ? The interface won't get any better with 64Bit nor does Antialiasing ;)

Ask the boys in the PC section about that.. they have the windows 64 version benchmarked.

Captain Obvious
10-20-2005, 03:38 PM
Ask the boys in the PC section about that.. they have the windows 64 version benchmarked.
Any performance gain in Lightwave 64 on the Windows side is caused by Microsoft/NewTek fixing issues with Windows and Lightwave, not some inherent 64-bit advantage. Thusly, the performance gain (if any) will not translate directly to a Lightwave 64 for Mac. In Mac OS X, a 64-bit process is only faster than a 32-bit one in very few circumstances, and Lightwave isn't one of the things that stand a lot to gain. 64-bit 3D applications on the Mac is about RAM and little else.

Lightwolf
10-20-2005, 03:45 PM
Any performance gain in Lightwave 64 on the Windows side is caused by Microsoft/NewTek fixing issues with Windows and Lightwave, not some inherent 64-bit advantage.
Sorry for jumping in, if only to correct you slightly...
The speedup on the PC side is due to neither reason you mentioned, but due to the fact that x86-64 processors behave differently in 64bit mode (a peculiarity of that architecture), mainly the fact that the have more registers. Also, since x86-64 processors have a minimum instruction set that is above that of a 32bit x86 processors, LW can be optimized more agressively on a compiler level (no need to cater for older processors missing SSE2 for example).
Cheers,
Mike

archiea
10-20-2005, 05:48 PM
AAAHHHH-WHOOOOOO!!!

Hey lightwolf... how is a 64bit app faster than a 32 bit one on the mac, just to answer Capt obvious, as he thinks that LW has little to gain in 64 bit.

Captain Obvious
10-20-2005, 06:17 PM
Oh, right, I forgot about that, Lightwolf. While we're at it, the fact that Windows XP-64 doesn't use the standard floating point unit at all might contribute as well. It uses SSE for everything, I think. Oh well. Neither that nor the more registers will effect the Mac version, which was my point.

On the Mac side of things, a 64-bit app usually performs the same as a 32-bit app, unless it uses 64-bit integers, something Lightwave doesn't (at least not while rendering, as far as I know). See, the thing is, Macs (and PCs, for that matter) have been able to do 64-bit math on floats for a long time. They're already "64-bit" in that respect. It doesn't really change anything for Macs, at all. It's basically just the RAM and the occasional 64-bit integer.

Lightwolf
10-21-2005, 03:00 AM
AAAHHHH-WHOOOOOO!!!
Hey lightwolf... how is a 64bit app faster than a 32 bit one on the mac, just to answer Capt obvious, as he thinks that LW has little to gain in 64 bit.
Basically for the last reason that I mentioned, the compiler doesn't have to care about compatibility to older generation processors.
Anything else within 5% or so is probably due to the OS being able to manage ressources a bit better (i.e. win XP64 sme 32bit apps run faster as well).
Cheers,
Mike

Lightwolf
10-21-2005, 03:01 AM
Oh, right, I forgot about that, Lightwolf. While we're at it, the fact that Windows XP-64 doesn't use the standard floating point unit at all might contribute as well. It uses SSE for everything, I think. Oh well. Neither that nor the more registers will effect the Mac version, which was my point.
Absolutely correct. I just like to jump in an clarify things, sorry for the bad habbit :)
Cheers,
Mike

Captain Obvious
10-21-2005, 03:43 AM
Absolutely correct. I just like to jump in an clarify things, sorry for the bad habbit :)
Cheers,
Mike
I'm just as big a nitpick myself, only perhaps not quite as knowledgeable in this particular area as yourself. ;)

Lightwolf
10-21-2005, 03:48 AM
I'm just as big a nitpick myself, only perhaps not quite as knowledgeable in this particular area as yourself. ;)
Lol... :thumbsup: as long as you don't mind me being a smart arse every now and then... no harm intended :D
I just like to soak up infos on topics like that like a sponge... ;)
Cheers,
Mike