PDA

View Full Version : LightWave Newsletter - November 2005



Kurtis
11-17-2005, 09:07 AM
The newest volume of the LightWave Newsletter has been posted to the site at:
http://www.lightwave3d.com/newsletters/v2-n10

lw3d23
11-17-2005, 10:05 AM
Is the feature list updated?

hrgiger
11-17-2005, 10:59 AM
I see it says that Lightwave 9 is coming soon. Well, I wanted some clarification on the word soon so here is what online Websters had to say:

Definition: Soon
Soon
Adverb
1. In the near future; "the doctor will soon be here"; "the book will appear shortly"; "she will arrive presently"; "we should have news before long"; "Lightwave 9 coming soon".

(Ok, I added that last one). That sounds good, right?

jeremyhardin
11-17-2005, 11:10 AM
it's been updated a little at least. it confirms the ability to weight in layout:

Many modeling operations now available in Layout
Vertex maps and Weight maps can now be created and edited with Layout
Major workflow improvements
Character rigging is much simplified

toonafish
11-17-2005, 11:45 AM
it's been updated a little at least. it confirms the ability to weight in layout:


Hmmm, if nothing changed it's just a Layout version of VertexPaint. At least that's what I saw in one of the Siggraph movies. So I'm not expecting too much from that statement.

operation
11-17-2005, 03:32 PM
I prefer the word "SOON" .. than a "real" date number.

Than keep working, please no date or period annoucement... it's better this way.

Just a very stable version with less bugs ( went back to 8.3 ... disappointed by v. 8.5, too much bugs (for me and my needs. It's my point of vue, of course ).

Even if it's for next year, it's ok !
Or is it to push people to update with the 8.5+vue bundle before the offer end ?
:devil:

ps: please, more user profile ! :)

thanks

DavidL
11-17-2005, 03:39 PM
What's "Catmull-Clark subdivision surfaces" all about? Is that in addition to what's already there or maybe this algorithm replaces the current one for sub-d's? Is it better than what we already have or just a different choice?

David

harlan
11-17-2005, 05:08 PM
Catmull-Clark SubD's are true "industry standard" subdivision surfaces, developed by Pixar. My understanding of the current LW SubD's is that they're very loosely based on the Catmull-Clark concept but are not a true incarnation of them - hence the them being called SubPatches.

Catmull-Clark SubD's are far more sophisticated than the native LW SubPatch. They offer full or partial mesh subdivision at various levels, ngons, creasing, etc. Hopefully the forthcoming Catmull-Clark support in LW will be a full implementation of Catmull-Clark SubD's.

Most of the apps which support SubD's use Catmull-Clark (XSI, Maya, Modo, etc..). It'll be interesting to see if we can export a SubD mesh from LW and have it properly import into Maya or XSI - in theory, if LW uses true CC SubD's then the mesh will look identical at the same subdivision level in both apps.

hope that makes sense, or even helps.


harlan

jeremyhardin
11-17-2005, 05:13 PM
how 'bout this one?

Quaternion Rotations

A new rotation controller offers quaternion rotations to minimize gimbal lock.

Are these the same type of rotations that we have in XSI (can be viewport, local, global, etc)? If not, what are Quaternion Rotations?

*feels stupid for not knowing, but asks anyway*

harlan
11-17-2005, 05:15 PM
While it may not seem significant that NewTek is incorporating true Catmull-Clark SubD's into 9; hopefully it's a sign of them becoming more compliant with Industry Standards rather than trying to create their own variation of everything.

One of my biggest complaints about LW has been it's 'ignoring' of standards in favor of creating their own proprietary method of accomplishing tasks.

Standards compliance... bring it on!!! ;)

Who knows, maybe someday we'll even see a standards based physics/dynamics system implemented into LW - like native support for Aegia, Syflex, ODE or something.

SaturnX
11-18-2005, 08:55 AM
I agree with harlan.
i mean, what the heck is ikbooster all about in all honesty??
Was kinda hoping it would get scraped... and... re-approached ?

Emmanuel
11-18-2005, 10:19 AM
They should overhaul, simplify, streamline and integrate the whole character setup and animation process.
IKB should behave style guide conform to LW's other tools.
Dunno, IKB looks like a secretly developped plugin by some japanese developer, that was fiddled into Layout.

Chuck
11-18-2005, 10:39 AM
Hmmm, if nothing changed it's just a Layout version of VertexPaint.

Well, not precisely. It's just plain Vertex Paint. Same as runs in Modeler, not a "Layout Version." A number of other Modeler plugins will be working in Layout as of v9, as well as some mesh editing capabilities.

Chuck
11-18-2005, 10:48 AM
While it may not seem significant that NewTek is incorporating true Catmull-Clark SubD's into 9; hopefully it's a sign of them becoming more compliant with Industry Standards rather than trying to create their own variation of everything.

One of my biggest complaints about LW has been it's 'ignoring' of standards in favor of creating their own proprietary method of accomplishing tasks.

Standards compliance... bring it on!!! ;)

Who knows, maybe someday we'll even see a standards based physics/dynamics system implemented into LW - like native support for Aegia, Syflex, ODE or something.


Yes, there have been occasions when we've been guilty of re-inventing a wheel when there were already standard implementations it might have been wisest to follow; on the other hand, relative to other commercial packages, sometimes we were getting there first with a feature set, subdivision surfaces being one example; the other high-end packages then came along with the features, and yes, in many cases a standard was then set that we didn't match. It is one of the goals to address those departures from current realities as we redesign the application for v9 and beyond. In most cases, I think we'll be able to preserve compatibility with our own past as we create compatibility with the de facto standards. In some cases, that may not be possible or best for the future, and so some past compatibility may have to be given up.

dballesg
11-19-2005, 06:19 AM
Yes, there have been occasions when we've been guilty of re-inventing a wheel when there were already standard implementations it might have been wisest to follow; on the other hand, relative to other commercial packages, sometimes we were getting there first with a feature set, subdivision surfaces being one example; the other high-end packages then came along with the features, and yes, in many cases a standard was then set that we didn't match. It is one of the goals to address those departures from current realities as we redesign the application for v9 and beyond. In most cases, I think we'll be able to preserve compatibility with our own past as we create compatibility with the de facto standards. In some cases, that may not be possible or best for the future, and so some past compatibility may have to be given up.

HI Chuck,

That sounds to me that maybe a feature that we have now will not work in the future with the old models/scenes?

I will not complain if it is for better workflow, and I understand you and all the dev team are doing your best to do not let that happens! :lightwave

Cheers, David

Vision1
11-19-2005, 06:29 AM
i agree that you have to follow some industy standarts but follow these industry standarts is not innovative and i think you must be innovative to survive in the future

Chuck
11-19-2005, 07:21 AM
i agree that you have to follow some industy standarts but follow these industry standarts is not innovative and i think you must be innovative to survive in the future

Then we are in perfect agreement. We plan to follow those industry standards that make sense to do so for better pipeline compatibility in today's multi-application production environment, and also to lead by innovating new capabilities and faster, more flexible and powerful workflow. :)

hrgiger
11-19-2005, 07:46 AM
Well, not precisely. It's just plain Vertex Paint. Same as runs in Modeler, not a "Layout Version." A number of other Modeler plugins will be working in Layout as of v9, as well as some mesh editing capabilities.

That's disappointing. I was hoping that with the modeler core being brought into Layout that we could weight pionts much like we do in modeler by selecitng points and/or groups of points and either manually entering in a weight value or by clicking and dragging the selection to weight. Can't say I'm the biggest fan of Vertex paint.

Is the plan evnetually to have all modeler functionality available in Layout? Because I really believe that vertex control in Layout is essential. And please, nobody mention sock monkey or edit points in dynamics....It's too early in the morning for laughs.

Ztreem
11-19-2005, 07:55 AM
We plan to follow those industry standards that make sense to do so for better pipeline compatibility in today's multi-application production environment, and also to lead by innovating new capabilities and faster, more flexible and powerful workflow. :)


That sounds perfect and I think LW 9 will be a good start of the future, I want that future now! :D

Elmar Moelzer
11-19-2005, 07:59 AM
Hello!
Well actually LWs SubDivisionSurfaces have one HUGE advantage over Catmul Clark Subdivisions: They are much, much faster.

From what I understand the modeling core has been brought over to Layout completely. I am not sure whether they actually managed to bring over the necessary OpenGL- functionality to Layout yet, that is necessary for selection of Points, Polygons, etc...
I am not sure about NewTeks plans in regards to this, but it might take a bit longer than LW9.0, since LWs OpenGL code differs signifficantly in Modeler and Layout. The reason for this is in the different requirements that both had until now (if they dont manage to do it for LW9.0 I would expect it for LW9.x)
I am wondering whether there are plans to unify the OpenGL code for both (its been in the talks before).
Anyway this OpenGL- "problem" is probably the reason why they havent said yet which tools actually work in Layout and which dont.
I guess that all Modeler tools that require the user to do something in the Viewport will have problems.
Now the good part is of course that 3rd party developers can already take advantage of the Modeling functions in Layout with LW9.0. They just need to work arround the OpenGL thing, by either adding their own OpenGL- viewport like Vertexpaint or by working arround it in other ways.
Personally I see huge possibilities in terms of the automatic generation of geometry in Layout. Things like mesh reduction etc, could be very useful too.
We will see how things work when LW9.0 is finally released. I am very optimistic in regards of the future of LW though.
Anyway, the ability to edit weightmaps in Layout even with Vertexpaint is a welcome addition for me...
I am really looking foreward to seeing LW9.0.
CU
Elmar

dballesg
11-19-2005, 12:06 PM
Hi Elmar,

Maybe that is why this sentence:

SDK Improvements: Node Graph SDK

Taken from:

http://www.newtek.com/lightwave/lw9featureprelim.php

It can make me cry if they implement Modeler tools in Layout and the sdk it is not changed accordingly.

I know it is a preliminary list, so maybe it would be good to include a few more data about the SDK preliminary changes. Chuck?

Cheers, david.

Cageman
11-19-2005, 12:43 PM
I agree with harlan.
i mean, what the heck is ikbooster all about in all honesty??
Was kinda hoping it would get scraped... and... re-approached ?

You can make a hierarcy behave like it was rigged with bones using IK, that is just one example. Pretty usefull too!

Elmar Moelzer
11-19-2005, 03:07 PM
Hey David!
I think this is not listed since you can just use the Modeler SDK for this, since these are really just Modeler Plugins running in Layout.
I am not entirely sure how one could give them some non Modeler typical control in Layout, but I would guess (and this is really just an educated guess) that one could use the comring to make this work with a "normal" Layout plugin as a controller. I cant say this for sure yet though...
We will see how things look like when LW9.0 gets released. I just hope that the SDK docs will see an update too. A lot of the features that Steve Worley obviously uses for Fprime2.0 havent been added to the SDK docs yet, at last time I checked. I think it would be nice if the common folk got access to these too. E.g. we here at MSG might not be Steve Worley, but we too know some nice tricks and would like to get to use them for LW ;)
CU
Elmar

Lightwolf
11-19-2005, 04:14 PM
I just hope that the SDK docs will see an update too. A lot of the features that Steve Worley obviously uses for Fprime2.0 havent been added to the SDK docs yet, at last time I checked.
Amen bro...
8.1 had half of the additions documented in the SDK docs, the other half were raw header files.
8.3 had the changes documented in the HTML file describing the download.
8.5 had no SDK additions if I remember correctly...
...and the SDK docs are in a very bad state at the moment, basically 7.5 with 30% of the new SDK hooks partly documented...
Cheers,
Mike

kfiram
11-19-2005, 04:14 PM
A number of other Modeler plugins will be working in Layout as of v9, as well as some mesh editing capabilities.

Please, Chuck, I think it is essential to come forward and say exactly what sort of "mesh editing capabilities" will be available.

When 9 was first announced, we were led to believe that most modeling tools would now be available in Layout. We were even contemplating about the possibilities of animated Modeler tools.
Now it seems that "some" capabilities are there. What exactly does that mean? What are we to expect? I urge you to be as clear on this subject as you can. Not only for the users sake but also for Newtek's.

If the users expect drastic changes and what they get are some basic tweaks, that won't be good for either Newtek or its users.
It doesn't matter how profound the work underneath is. What matters is what the users see when they install 9. If they expect ABC and get only A, they'll leave. It's all about expectations.

I know you're still in the development process and might not have all the answers, so I beg you to be as frank about this as you possibly can. The 9 announcement was great because it was frank and revealing. We got to hear the reasoning behind Newtek's decisions. We saw a glimpse of things to come. We became a part of the team, a part of the process. If Newtek wishes to carry on with this great attitude, then please let us know where things stand:
What do you plan to have available come 9?
Can we actually model in Layout?
Can we create primitives?
Can we select points and polygons?
Can we use Modify operations?
Can these be animated?
Can we use Multiply operations?
Can those be animated?
What can we expect to see on 9.X and beyond?
Is it your intention to have ALL Modeler tools available in Layout at some point in time?
Is that even a distant possibility?

If some questions cannot be answered, we'd sure like to at least get some kind of clue. You can say that you're working on it or that you'd like to get it implemented but are having some issues. I don't think anyone will be upset to know. On the contrary...

Your users need to know. You need to let them know. Please, do the right thing!

Elmar Moelzer
11-19-2005, 04:42 PM
Now lets take a deep breath, lean back and relax mate, everything will be good... trust me ;)

SaturnX
11-20-2005, 01:59 PM
I prefer Industry standard over 'not working very well'... any day of the week.

how many times does the wheel need to be invented ?

Intuition
11-20-2005, 04:52 PM
In Newtek's defense there was many a time when making changes to the new version made it so you couldn't load older models and scenes in other packages.

As Chuck has stated, they tried to get the best of both worlds.

In lw9 things may depart from the past. May sound good to you now but when you try to load up old stuff they may be incompatible due the new rewrites some may be complaining still. I believe they are trying to compensate for this as much as possible but its a very tricky balance.

Sure, catmull or not, you want the "industry standards" and yet did anyone consider that it might mean not being able to use old models and scenes?

When put into the context of "something that works" that means alot of different things to alot of different people.

Sure, you get catmull but now you have to make a new model from scratch as opposed to loading up your old one. This would make a some happy and probably some people upset. "Jeez, newtek broke that in version number point number"....and on it goes.

Not Maya, Not 3dstudio, not Cinema4d, not Rhino, or any other 3d package has that kind of perfect transition through version upgrades either.

Industry standards is another thing that is up for subjectivity. Sure, 3dsmax has a great "favorite feature here" and Maya has great "favorite feature here" but you'll hear thier users ranting on about "industry standards" when they see stuff like F-Prime and wonder why no one has something like that for thier software.

Its all relative guys. We've been spoiled. I want better SSScattering in Native LW renders as opposed to shaders or plug ins. I could go on. But right now things are looking up for Lightwave and Newtek and I think many people are going to have too high of expectations from Lw9.

Many may just want the feature list to actually be delieved as stated as oppposed to every possible thing stuffed in. This is understandable. No 3d software company has delivered that yet either.

Grass is not greener on the other side of the fence its just different shades, grows faster, lasts longer, you name it. Its a trade off.

:newtek: :thumbsup:

Dirk
11-21-2005, 06:36 AM
I would really feel very bad if I couldn't use my old models with a new version. What I really expect from LW9 is stability, stability, stability..... did I mention stability?

In any 3d package, there are quirks and bugs, and a lot of stuff can only be done with workarounds. That goes for all. Lightwave was (and still is) a no-nonsense approach to 3D, with functions and plugins that (mostly) work; and the ability to change scenes and rigged models very late in a production process.

And for the modeller/Layout integration: I don't care if they are in one application or not, but I like the distinction between them very much. Modeling is something very different than animating. Total integration of Modeller into Layout may give the ability to create some rarely needed and very special FX, but may screw up a very good workflow.

RedBull
11-21-2005, 04:38 PM
I would really feel very bad if I couldn't use my old models with a new version. What I really expect from LW9 is stability, stability, stability..... did I mention stability?.

If stability is a primary concern for you, than you should hold off on LW9 until it's been out and publically tested for stability.....

Stick with 8.3 or 8.5, until 9.x has arrived.. Earlier adopters of new versions,
who use software in production, should and usually are smarter than this.

The fact is LW9 is a new version, and will contain quite a few large changes,
this will cause stability problems, and you can likely expect larger and bigger
problems from LW9, than from LW8 as a result.... Regardless of Beta testing.

When a new model car is shipped, it always has more issues, bugs and recalls then subsequent models on the same platform. Same for software.

I often think a new versions like LW9 should be marketed and released to the public as a full release public beta, just to stop the "LW9 has bugs, where's my 9.1 fix now!" posts, which will always follow. If they know ahead of time,
that the first release, will have issues, they avoid the disappointment of reality.

Cageman
11-21-2005, 05:44 PM
I often think a new versions like LW9 should be marketed and released to the public as a full release public beta, just to stop the "LW9 has bugs, where's my 9.1 fix now!" posts, which will always follow. If they know ahead of time,
that the first release, will have issues, they avoid the disappointment of reality.

True, but then...will any software be anything else than a constant beta? :)

Earl
11-21-2005, 06:48 PM
If stability is a primary concern for you, than you should hold off on LW9 until it's been out and publically tested for stability.....

Stick with 8.3 or 8.5, until 9.x has arrived.. Earlier adopters of new versions,
who use software in production, should and usually are smarter than this.

The fact is LW9 is a new version, and will contain quite a few large changes,
this will cause stability problems, and you can likely expect larger and bigger
problems from LW9, than from LW8 as a result.... Regardless of Beta testing.
While this may prove to be true, I have some confidence that LW9 will be as stable or moreso than the current 8.5. I'm basing this off of my own account that LW8 was (for me) more stable than 7.5. But yeah, generally speaking you should never install a new patch/version on a production machine until you've personally tested it first on a non-production computer.

cgbloke2004
11-21-2005, 07:11 PM
You can make a hierarcy behave like it was rigged with bones using IK, that is just one example. Pretty usefull too!

agreed - there were many times i found IKB to actually be useful, and i was thankful for its inclusion.

i've not quite been so successful with it in character animation/rigging, but certainly in other applications it has been very fast and very handy tool to have to hand.

theo
11-21-2005, 10:40 PM
One of my biggest complaints about LW has been it's 'ignoring' of standards in favor of creating their own proprietary method of accomplishing tasks.

Standards compliance... bring it on!!! ;)


Oddly, if LW was heavily "standards-compliant" or focused its core development on being an "industry-standard" Maya/XSI clone in gray drag I think I would be quite correct in assuming that the chorus of "standards-focused" people among us would become quite shrill in voicing their concern over LW's potential demise due to a lack of innovation and invention.

Having an eye on fitting your software product into "industry standards" IS really important. I certainly would not want to be the first here to twist the mush out of that reality. Remeber, my friend, LW did not just now fall out of the womb. Millions of happy eyes have been awed by the visual dance of the shining wave of light known as Lightwave.

There is an alternate reality to "industry-standard". The alternate reality states that the "industry-standard" process must first be germinated in the "lowly" soil of innovation and invention.

So let us not be too hasty in stuffing LW into the tight white vest of standards-compliance. If I want XSI or Maya- I'll buy XSI or Maya. My preference is not to see the 3D industry get so bogged down in "standards" that the only way to differentiate between the players is to check the prints on their boxer shorts.

ercaxus
11-22-2005, 12:41 AM
Zbrush guys didn't care about industry standards. They created one.

Dirk
11-22-2005, 04:29 AM
If stability is a primary concern for you, than you should hold off on LW9 until it's been out and publically tested for stability.....

Stick with 8.3 or 8.5, until 9.x has arrived.. Earlier adopters of new versions,
who use software in production, should and usually are smarter than this.

True. This is why I sticked to 7.5 until a week ago.

Captain Obvious
11-22-2005, 05:00 AM
Oddly, if LW was heavily "standards-compliant" or focused its core development on being an "industry-standard" Maya/XSI clone in gray drag I think I would be quite correct in assuming that the chorus of "standards-focused" people among us would become quite shrill in voicing their concern over LW's potential demise due to a lack of innovation and invention.
Standards are not about uniformity; they're about compatibility.

theo
11-22-2005, 08:51 AM
Standards are not about uniformity; they're about compatibility.

Compatibility cannot exist without uniformity.

I understand compatibility is a critical component but I am more of a moderate when it comes to this issue. Mainly because compatibility is a highly subjective state at this stage in our digital evolution.

What do you base your compatibility requirements on? There are simple and basic requirements that can suit the needs of large user base. It is the simple and basic (a standard model file, for example) that I would more than likely approve rather than a robust compatibility across a myriad of different 3D platforms.

I cannot comprehend how a 3D company can truly be competitive long-term without some level of proprietary focus.

I respect your opinion Oblivious, of course, but I would prefer not to see the 3D industry evolve into what the big box retailers have become.

Bog boxes with doors that sell almost entirely the same exact things made almost entirely in the same exact country. So essentially you get the compatibilty of the electrical components of a Chinese produced lamp at Target, Walmart, Sears, KMarts and so on with the only difference being the shape and color of said object. Ok- granted, the analogy is extreme but it serves as a suitable instance in my book.

Captain Obvious
11-22-2005, 09:54 AM
When you talk about "industry standards," you usually don't mean that t should always be the move tool, that all render engines should use irradiance caching, or anything even removely similar. It usually means that different applications play well together. Compatibility doesn't prevent anyone from building their application in a non-standard way. Compatibility exists for that application to be able to integrate seamlessly into an environment where other applications and platforms exist.




So essentially you get the compatibilty of the electrical components of a Chinese produced lamp at Target, Walmart, Sears, KMarts and so on with the only difference being the shape and color of said object. Ok- granted, the analogy is extreme but it serves as a suitable instance in my book.
The fact that all light bulbs use the same socket and the same voltage (which they don't, but let's pretend) doesn't mean you can't do new and exiting things with light bulbs. If some producer realizes that the light bulbs become more efficient if you change something, they can do that. Why else would low-energy bulbs exist? They're still compatible. A certain amount of compatibility doesn't hurt innovation. It actually does good things for innovation, because it prevents platform lock-in. If there was a good amount of compatibility between different 3D applications (model files, UV maps, basic texturing, animation, etc), a studio could add a new application to their workflow. If there is no compatibility at all, chances are they'll just stick to the platform they're using, since it's the only option that works.

Verlon
11-22-2005, 05:15 PM
Ack...am I actually saying this?

"Well said Captain Obvious!"

jeremyhardin
11-22-2005, 05:24 PM
true. well said.

:decaf

theo
11-22-2005, 08:05 PM
When you talk about "industry standards," you usually don't mean that t should always be the move tool, that all render engines should use irradiance caching, or anything even removely similar.

Your sarcasm here is really unnecessary and unwarranted. If you read my post, I specifically state that compatibility is critical- but with moderation.


Compatibility exists for that application to be able to integrate seamlessly into an environment where other applications and platforms exist.

You truly believe that seamless integration with XSI and Maya, for example, should be a driving force behind the evolution of LW? Compatibility between 3D programs is what we are talking about here not compositing programs or the like.


The fact that all light bulbs use the same socket and the same voltage (which they don't, but let's pretend) doesn't mean you can't do new and exiting things with light bulbs. If some producer realizes that the light bulbs become more efficient if you change something, they can do that. Why else would low-energy bulbs exist? They're still compatible. A certain amount of compatibility doesn't hurt innovation.

3D software is not anywhere near the ubiquity of light bulbs.

Your point becomes literally so broad here that the compatibility factor ceases to be a part of the equation. Light bulbs must be compatible with a electrical component of which there are literally millions, far too many to fit into any equation that illustrates a compatibility concept.


It actually does good things for innovation, because it prevents platform lock-in. If there was a good amount of compatibility between different 3D applications (model files, UV maps, basic texturing, animation, etc), a studio could add a new application to their workflow. If there is no compatibility at all, chances are they'll just stick to the platform they're using, since it's the only option that works.

I prefer platform lock-in. I prefer investing in a solid company over the long term. I prefer focusing my energies on as few software packages as possible that get the best job done in the least amount of time.

I don't care about different 3D applications. I don't care about different image-editing programs. I don't care about different compositing programs. I buy the best in each field and hunker down for the long haul.

I care only about efficiency. I care only about spending as little time in front of this screen while making the maximum amount of money.

Verlon
11-23-2005, 12:57 AM
Theo:
I don't think Captain Obvious was being sarcastic (but I was wrong once just last week, so who knows?).

While I want innovation, also, I can see the advantages of industry standards also. For example, many video editing packages can make use of Adobe After Effects plugins (DFX+ that came with my LW upgrade comes to mind).

Wouldn't it be nice if 3D software were that flexible? How innovative would THAT be? I'd love to be able to use that spiffy fluids plugin mentioned in that other thread, or any one of countless tools developed for the other guys.

I am sure that there are many who would love to be able to move their models/scenes/motions/surfaces back and forth between LW and other 3D applications without having to jump through hoops for any number of reasons. MOST of the applications are not even in competition with LW.

For example, one could (with proper levels of compliance) write an import utility for their game, and it would work with ANY 3D app instead of just one. Surfacing and animations would all be correct from the start.

Anark (www.anark.com) would work easily with all 3D apps.

Also, it would make it less painful for users of other 3D apps to quit torturing themselves and move over to LW if they didn't have to replace all their plugins and models... :)

Industry standards do not smother innovation. Indeed, they can do just the opposite. If Sony had been successful in their original efforts, we would have been stuck with Beta VCRs only. Look at all the features that came from other manufacturers.

If Intel had been successful in their efforts, we would all be migrating to a version of Windows that was not compatible with Windows 2000/ME about now and all our old software would be obsolete.

Instead, industry standards have helped consumers in those instances. Like anything, standards can be taken to excess, but I can see how a little more might be helpful in this case.

StereoMike
11-23-2005, 01:29 AM
wishful thinking and no way to happen in RL.
sorry for that.

I'm with Theo on that, but not cause I want it that way (as Theo) but cause I think that's economic suicide for one or the other company. And if only some companies don't want these "standards", the whole idea dies.

Mike

Captain Obvious
11-23-2005, 04:50 AM
I don't think Captain Obvious was being sarcastic (but I was wrong once just last week, so who knows?).
You weren't wrong this time. I wasn't really being sarcastic.

As for whether or not it would actually work, I don't think that was my point. But surely you agree that it would be terrific if I could model something in modo, texture it in Lightwave, bring it into Maya for animation, and then ship it over to Lightwave and Kray again for rendering, and still maintain all animation, without any fuzz.


As for platform lock-in, I fail to see how anyone can think it's good. Right now, Lightwave can transfer (fairly) seamlessly between a Mac and a Windows machine. Where your dongle goes, your Lightwave goes, basically. This is a good example of compatibility. Imagine if you had to contact NewTek for a trade-in licence (for a fee, of course) if you wanted to switch platform. That'd be horrible.

Ztreem
11-23-2005, 05:19 AM
As for platform lock-in, I fail to see how anyone can think it's good. Right now, Lightwave can transfer (fairly) seamlessly between a Mac and a Windows machine. Where your dongle goes, your Lightwave goes, basically. This is a good example of compatibility. Imagine if you had to contact NewTek for a trade-in licence (for a fee, of course) if you wanted to switch platform. That'd be horrible.

Or even worse, when you try to install it on your mac you realize that they don't read CD-ROM's because they invented another media, or when you should plugin your dongle you realize that the mac don't use USB they only have Firewire (this was true some years ago, I think). With this I mean if there is no standardisation then with time people wouldn't use the software especially if all other softwares was standardlised.
It's like having a car but you can't fill it up because it doesn't run on gas.

theo
11-23-2005, 07:04 AM
As for platform lock-in, I fail to see how anyone can think it's good. Right now, Lightwave can transfer (fairly) seamlessly between a Mac and a Windows machine. Where your dongle goes, your Lightwave goes, basically. This is a good example of compatibility. Imagine if you had to contact NewTek for a trade-in licence (for a fee, of course) if you wanted to switch platform. That'd be horrible.

God- this is one of the prevalent problems of forum-based communication.

I swear Obvious that you are obviously NOT reading my posts completely nor is anyone else with your view.

I have already stated TWICE that compatibility is critical. But the reality is: compatibility is probably a pretty troublesome double-edged sword for software developers and it may take them years to make sure that it is in their best competitive interest to acquiesce to a standard. But even more important is my next comment:

I don't think you and your people are being fair here to an industry that changes by the year it seems. Standards can be developed and then be scrapped because of this. How can standards, outside of the very basic, in an evolving market like 3D creation even be implemented on the broad scale?
I think standards are really important but this must be tempered with reality.

Look at standards on the web- which I try to follow to a certain point. It has taken years to even get a semblance of compliance mainly because the internet is still evolving and it has taken a lot of time trying to determine WHAT to standardize.

As far as platform lock-in you definitely took that too broadly and to be fair maybe I should have explained that. For my uses and financial feasibility and mental peace my preference is to focus on a pipeline that includes only the core best (in my opinion): LW, DF, PS and so on. I am much too focused on my profitability to be distracted with software in the periphery. I am like everyone else here on the forums and will promote certain features to Newtek that I feel are necessary for me to be productive but beyond that everything starts to become a crap shoot.

If you are in the creative business to make money (which I am) it is a proven fact that too many distractions decrease profitability.