PDA

View Full Version : Intel,Xcode Road-Map for Lightwave 3d V9 on the Mac.



paul summers
01-22-2006, 11:10 AM
We are now at the start of 2006 and for some reason Newtek
are still not willing to communicate with there Mac user-base regarding
answers to the development of lightwave 3d v9 on the Mac.

Just what is it that stops then from letting the Mac user's know were we all stand.
Now that APPLE has got the new Intel laptops out of the door this may give Newtek a bit of a kick to get a move on.
But not one word as come from Newtek regarding Universal Code and the new Apple Intel tower's will be here sooner than we think.

We all know that the Core Code in lightwave for the Mac and PC is old and out of date
and that the V9 Beta Is coming soon.

But Newtek just say nothing when asked about the development of Lightwave V9 on the Mac.

So were are we now Newtek?

Over the past year Mac users have asked you about the port to Xcode that you started at the back end of 2004

The new Apple Hardware is out now and as we all know lightwave 3d v9 will not run on it.
So is lightwave years away from running on the Intel Mac because of Newtek's lack of support for Xcode on the mac.
we just don't know because Newtek is not willing to communicate this fact with us.

Still to this day we have not got a stable compile of lightwave 3d on OSX so
let's hope that v9 fixes this?


Now more than ever we need a statement by Newtek to the Mac community addressing the long ongoing
stability issues with lightwave 3d, Apple's move to the Intel CPU, and a Xcode Road-Map for Lightwave 3d V9 on the Mac.


Then we will all know exactly where Newtek is regarding Lightwave 3D on the Mac platform and we can evaluate if it is time to move on.

Thanks

cminshall
01-22-2006, 06:58 PM
It seems to me that they (NewTek development team) could be a little more forth-coming in terms of their plans for the XCode port but it could also mean that they are trying REALLY hard to try and get the XCode port done FOR R9 and want it to be a surprise. I don't want to be guilty of starting a rumor but given NewTek's past efforts at trying to be first-to-market with a version of their code for various platforms (i.e. 64-bit) it would make sense for them to accelerate their efforts in this area. Of course, it would be nice to get some confirmation either one way or the other to this idea!! My guess is that we won't know until the official release version of 9 is out the door (since there have been indications that even the open-beta of 9 will be covered by an NDA).

I do know it would be a huge slap in the face to the Mac version of Lightwave 3D to NOT have a universal binary version of the application out at the same time as Modo/Cinema 4D/etc. releases their universal binaries!

Chris



We are now at the start of 2006 and for some reason Newtek
are still not willing to communicate with there Mac user-base regarding
answers to the development of lightwave 3d v9 on the Mac.

Just what is it that stops then from letting the Mac user's know were we all stand.
Now that APPLE has got the new Intel laptops out of the door this may give Newtek a bit of a kick to get a move on.
But not one word as come from Newtek regarding Universal Code and the new Apple Intel tower's will be here sooner than we think.

We all know that the Core Code in lightwave for the Mac and PC is old and out of date
and that the V9 Beta Is coming soon.

But Newtek just say nothing when asked about the development of Lightwave V9 on the Mac.

So were are we now Newtek?

Over the past year Mac users have asked you about the port to Xcode that you started at the back end of 2004

The new Apple Hardware is out now and as we all know lightwave 3d v9 will not run on it.
So is lightwave years away from running on the Intel Mac because of Newtek's lack of support for Xcode on the mac.
we just don't know because Newtek is not willing to communicate this fact with us.

Still to this day we have not got a stable compile of lightwave 3d on OSX so
let's hope that v9 fixes this?


Now more than ever we need a statement by Newtek to the Mac community addressing the long ongoing
stability issues with lightwave 3d, Apple's move to the Intel CPU, and a Xcode Road-Map for Lightwave 3d V9 on the Mac.


Then we will all know exactly where Newtek is regarding Lightwave 3D on the Mac platform and we can evaluate if it is time to move on.

Thanks

mats4d_
01-22-2006, 08:56 PM
I will have to keep using Lightwave's current version until MODO is released.

Im very excited about MODO ! is all I have to say

Darth Mole
01-23-2006, 04:16 AM
Yes, the app whose-name-shall-not-be-spoken is very nice, but there's a long way to go with it yet. No animation, no bones or Ik, no volumetrics, no hair, no motion graph, no cloth, no dynamics, no particles. And all for just $700.

I suspect NT are going like crazy at the moment to get 9 out, and I assume that the development of version 9 PC and Mac, the port to Xcode and the foundations of version 9.5 (or even 10) are all ongoing concurrently.

Knowing would be nice, but ultimately there's not much you can do until new code actually appears.

Chuck
01-25-2006, 10:23 AM
Actually I was quoted in another thread, from a post last September, where we had noted that the information current at that time did not indicate that there would be Intel Macs available at the time LightWave 9 shipped, so there were no plans to have a universal binary version of v9.0. The team has said that work is being done to port to XCode and that we will offer support for Intel Macs in a future update, via Universal Binaries. The team has so far not announced any change with regard to these plans.

Has anyone here tried LightWave on the new Macs, or seen reports from anyone who has? If so, what have the results been?

Scazzino
01-25-2006, 10:58 AM
No direct experience here, but I did come across this quote from Dan Ablan on the modo forum...

"I'm working with a guy that installed LW on a new iMac (Intel) at the Apple store yesterday. Dongle, LW all installed without issue. He had no bottlenecks, slowdowns, etc. Rendering was faster than his previous Mac.... so he bought one."

Now he doesn't say what the "previous" Mac was, it could have been a G4, or early model G5 since running under Rosetta would most likely be slower than the latest G5's... but according to this report anyway, it did work...

-MikeS

jeremyhardin
01-25-2006, 11:59 AM
Actually I was quoted in another thread, from a post last September, where we had noted that the information current at that time did not indicate that there would be Intel Macs available at the time LightWave 9 shipped, so there were no plans to have a universal binary version of v9.0. The team has said that work is being done to port to XCode and that we will offer support for Intel Macs in a future update, via Universal Binaries. The team has so far not announced any change with regard to these plans.

Has anyone here tried LightWave on the new Macs, or seen reports from anyone who has? If so, what have the results been?
Hi Chuck. Our (or at least my) concern is not that it won't be done at all, but that it's not a priority. Intel Macs are not new news. But no press release from newtek to coincide with Apple's early announcements are not encouraging.

A press release could state:

1. what you just said, that v9 is not ready for intel macs because of apple's early announcement
2. Newtek intends to have LW ported to universal binaries within the 9.x cycle.
or if not...
2. Newtek intends to have LW ported to universal binaries by LW10.

3. LW will or will not function under Rosetta, or will function but perform poorly.

4. LW's USB dongle will or will not be recognised on the Intel Mac.

In short, the frustration lies in the fact that all of the above information is NOT coming from newtek. some of the above information is actually being asked of users FROM newtek. frustrating set of circumstances.

This handling of information doesn't make newtek seem to have the answers but be silent. It convey's that these are issues that newtek hasn't even thought about, because they're not priority to them.

Scazzino
01-25-2006, 12:21 PM
More info would be nice, but let's keep things in perspective...

Apple was early with these new Intel Macs! Apple didn't even expect to have them ready yet, so I'm not surprised (and don't fault NewTek) that LW's not ready to run native on them yet either.

NewTek's working on an xcode port, as they've said in the past.

The main reason modo was so quick to port to the Intel Macs was because they started coding it directly in Xcode to begin with, since they were starting from scratch. LW on the Mac was begun long, long before Xcode even existed, so I'm sure there's a lot more work to port it over. There's also third party plugin issues etc.

I've been a Mac user since 1984... I've gone through the 68K to PPC transition and at that time most programs didn't run native on the PPC for quite a while...

This is one reason that Apple started with the consumer iMacs first. Because they understand that the pro level applications would take some time to port to Xcode. Consumers don't need top speed, so running things under Rosetta is fine for them. Pro level users would be better served by sticking with the quad core G5 for a while, until their critical apps run native... at full speed...

-MikeS

jeremyhardin
01-25-2006, 12:32 PM
More info would be nice, but let's keep things in perspective...

Apple was early with these new Intel Macs! Apple didn't even expect to have them ready yet, so I'm not surprised (and don't fault NewTek) that LW's not ready to run native on them yet either.

NewTek's working on an xcode port, as they've said in the past.

The main reason modo was so quick to port to the Intel Macs was because they started coding it directly in Xcode to begin with, since they were starting from scratch. LW on the Mac was begun long, long before Xcode even existed, so I'm sure there's a lot more work to port it over. There's also third party plugin issues etc.

I've been a Mac user since 1984... I've gone through the 68K to PPC transition and at that time most programs didn't run native on the PPC for quite a while...

This is one reason that Apple started with the consumer iMacs first. Because they understand that the pro level applications would take some time to port to Xcode. Consumers don't need top speed, so running things under Rosetta is fine for them. Pro level users would be better served by sticking with the quad core G5 for a while, until their critical apps run native... at full speed...

-MikeS
MikeS, I understand everything that you're saying. And I'm not saying I disagree.

BUT...

vague information and assurances of future information that never come will not suffice. all I've asked for is for Newtek to communicate more to it's Mac customers. specifically for the info above.

and that request still stands, and stands unmet and unrebutted.

eblu
01-25-2006, 01:30 PM
More info would be nice, but let's keep things in perspective...

Apple was early with these new Intel Macs! Apple didn't even expect to have them ready yet, so I'm not surprised (and don't fault NewTek) that LW's not ready to run native on them yet either.

NewTek's working on an xcode port, as they've said in the past.

The main reason modo was so quick to port to the Intel Macs was because they started coding it directly in Xcode to begin with, since they were starting from scratch. LW on the Mac was begun long, long before Xcode even existed, so I'm sure there's a lot more work to port it over. There's also third party plugin issues etc.

I've been a Mac user since 1984... I've gone through the 68K to PPC transition and at that time most programs didn't run native on the PPC for quite a while...

This is one reason that Apple started with the consumer iMacs first. Because they understand that the pro level applications would take some time to port to Xcode. Consumers don't need top speed, so running things under Rosetta is fine for them. Pro level users would be better served by sticking with the quad core G5 for a while, until their critical apps run native... at full speed...

-MikeS

mike, my two cents:
I agree with almost everything you've said in your post. Except for the reason (unnamed competitor product) is Intel mac ready. I'm not focussed on why (competitor product) is already there, and moved relatively fast, but that Newtek is actually using its Own code bloat as a Reason for not having done the right thing in the first place. True Lightwave has quite alot of weight and inertia behind it, but thats more reason for them to have started the "xcode" port, many many moons ago. Which if I remember correctly was one of the Very things I have been clamoring about since Xcode was called: ProjectBuilder. If Newtek had started the migration, when I had been fighting for it, then it would be done by now, and we would now have the singular hurdle of the actual Intel conversion, instead of the monumental task of fist getting it to run on Xcode, and then move it to a new processor. Sure, NOBODY had intel stuff for the machines that were delivered 6 MONTHs ahead of "schedule", but I'll bet money that Newtek doesn't ship Lightwave Intel till significantly beyond the original Mac Intel delivery date. And this because they have waited so long to move to Xcode, against the requests of the users.

simply put, Newtek was caught out in the snow without any food, like the grasshopper. Sure, (nameless competitors) had advantages, but I remember that they wanted the same advantages for Lightwave.

Scazzino
01-25-2006, 01:52 PM
I must respectfully disagree with you guys... I think NewTek's doing things right...

I'd guess that as new modules are being coded, they are probably doing those in Xcode on the Mac. It would have taken a lot more resources to just port old code, just for the sake of porting it, only to replace it with new code anyway as they are rebuilding the application from the ground up anyway... I'm also a programmer, and that's the approach I'd take myself...

Would it be nice if LW already ran natively on the Intel iMacs right now? Sure...

Does it bother me that it doesn't? Frankly, no...

I'm currently running a first generation DP G5 2GHz. I'll most likely move to a Quad G5 within the year, probably close to when they release the new Intel Pro Macs. I don't expect most pro apps to run native when the pro Macs are first released and I certainly didn't expect them to run native when the Intel iMacs were released, early...

But that's just my take on things, as a Mac user from the very first 128k Mac... FWIW... ;)

-MikeS

gerry_g
01-25-2006, 01:55 PM
Well it took me five years to go OSX, not because I'm a ludite or had my head in the sand. just wasn't realistic to do it faster, and same goes here. The way I see it you want the Big 'N' to tell you today about something you can't possibly act upon for another year/year an'a half possibly two at least, boy that'll help you sleep at night. All that's vexing me right now is, do I order my PPC G5 Quad this week or do I hold out see if they start discounting any day soon due to weak sales.........sweet dreams everyone !!

jeremyhardin
01-25-2006, 01:58 PM
I must respectfully disagree with you guys... I think NewTek's doing things right...

I'd guess that as new modules are being coded, they are probably doing those in Xcode on the Mac. It would have taken a lot more resources to just port old code, just for the sake of porting it, only to replace it with new code anyway as they are rebuilding the application from the ground up anyway... I'm also a programmer, and that's the approach I'd take myself...

Would it be nice if LW already ran natively on the Intel iMacs right now? Sure...

Does it bother me that it doesn't? Frankly, no...

I'm currently running a first generation DP G5 2GHz. I'll most likely move to a Quad G5 within the year, probably close to when they release the new Intel Pro Macs. I don't expect most pro apps to run native when the pro Macs are first released and I certainly didn't expect them to run native when the Intel iMacs were released, early...

But that's just my take on things, as a Mac user from the very first 128k Mac... FWIW... ;)

-MikeS
MikeS, I assume you're disagreeing with eblu, because what you're saying is not what I'm criticizing Newtek for. I'm not upset that it doesn't work on Intel Mac right now.

I'm frustrated that Newtek isn't talking at all about their plans for when it will work on Intel Macs. I seem to be repeating myself here over and over again.

All of the things that you said about coding it as they go rather than porting old code is FINE. I don't care. I want Newtek to TALK about it. WHEN? 9.x? 10? 10.x? 11? Rosetta? Dongle? c'mon. simple requests.

Scazzino
01-25-2006, 02:25 PM
I want Newtek to TALK about it. WHEN? 9.x? 10? 10.x? 11? Rosetta? Dongle? c'mon. simple requests.

Like I said, more info would always be nice, but something like this isn't as easy to predict when it'll be done, frankly, till it's done...
Software developers are always between a rock and a hard place. The users want to know when the next release will be done. But if the developers give an estimate, it usually ends up getting pushed back (like both NewTek and Lux right now) and then the users complain that they pushed it back... ;)

It reminds me of my son sitting in the back seat on a car trip... every five minutes he asks: "Are we there yet?" I tell him, we'll be there, when we get there... ;)

As for porting to XCode and then worrying about switching to Intel, it's the first part that's the hard part. Once on XCode the "switch" to Intel should be relatively painless, from all I've heard so far...

I'm operating and making my own purchasing decisions for my multimedia studio based on my own previous experience in such a transition. Personally I'd expect a few pro apps to run native by the time the first Intel Pro Macs are released. Then during that first year I'd expect more pro apps to go native. But I doubt that all the pro apps I use will be native by that first year. I'd also expect the early adopters to struggle through all the early problems that may crop up with the new generation of machines. By the second generation of the Intel pro machines, that's when I'd expect all my pro apps to be ready. That's when I'd most likely move to the new Intel Macs, unless things go much smoother than normal of course... ;) That's not to say I won't get ANY Intel Macs before then, but that's probably when I'd expect to move the bulk of my studio to Intel Macs...

It's probably safe to guess that LW will be native by then. Maybe sooner...

I didn't really switch to Mac OS X, till Jaguar... by then most pro apps were Mac OS X native...

:thumbsup:

-MikeS

jeremyhardin
01-25-2006, 03:31 PM
But if the developers give an estimate, it usually ends up getting pushed back (like both NewTek and Lux right now) and then the users complain that they pushed it back... ;)

It reminds me of my son sitting in the back seat on a car trip...
ah but there's a flaw in this statement MikeS. I'm not asking for an actual Month, Day, and Year time. Such a date would be a potential deadline missed.

I'm asking for a plan. 9.x doesn't have a definite release date. nor does 10. so Newtek could say that LW 10 will be in universal binaries (if that were their plan, for example). Then they could just NOT give a date (or Quarter, as is common) of release until its DONE (both the Mac port and the PC update). God forbid holding off releasing the PC version of LW 10 a couple of weeks until the Mac verion is done in Xcode.

And MikeS, if you're happy without information or plans from Newtek, then fine. Great.

I for one would like a roadmap of sorts. Leave off the dates. I don't care. Just let us know that there is a plan and what that plan is.

Scazzino
01-25-2006, 03:56 PM
I for one would like a roadmap of sorts. Leave off the dates. I don't care. Just let us know that there is a plan and what that plan is.

Ah, no flaw in my argument dude, that's exactly what they've done... ;)

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

Now did they specifically talk about moving the code to Xcode on the Mac? No, not there, but they have previously, so the way I read this, is that as modules are being rebuilt, those are the ones that would be moved to Xcode. When will they "all" be moved to XCode? When they are "all" moved to Xcode... The process started with LW8.x and continues through LW9.0 and beyond... ;)

-MikeS

Chuck
01-25-2006, 04:44 PM
MikeS, I understand everything that you're saying. And I'm not saying I disagree.

BUT...

vague information and assurances of future information that never come will not suffice. all I've asked for is for Newtek to communicate more to it's Mac customers. specifically for the info above.

and that request still stands, and stands unmet and unrebutted.

Jeremy, I've passed along the information that the team is willing to share at this time, and when the team provides additional information, I will pass that along as well, or another staff member will. We can appreciate that many people would like more detailed information than just that we are working on the port and our commitment that we will complete that in the timeliest fashion that can be managed, but that's all that we feel would be appropriate to say at this time.

As for NewTek asking for information from customers, I'm asking because I'm interested and I'd also like to pass it along and see if development might, on consideration, like to respond with some information for users.

jeremyhardin
01-25-2006, 04:46 PM
http://www.newtek.com/lightwave/lwfuturedev.php

Now did they specifically talk about moving the code to Xcode on the Mac? No...

Well thanks for that link MikeS, but unfortunately I made it perfectly clear that the plans I'm asking about are, well, the plans about moving the code to Xcode on the Mac.


The process started with LW8.x and continues through LW9.0 and beyond...

which is exactly what I said. in short...we don't know when (version-wise) LW will be Xcode. I would like to know. I have made it clear that I want to know what the plan for the Mac platform is, so that link isn't much help.

what I don't understand is this, MikeS. I asked Chuck for information. You don't think it's necessary that Newtek give that information. That's fine. But why argue with me about it? Regardless of your views on Newtek's policies, there are customers that don't share those views and want a plan/roadmap with the specific info I asked for above. You contribute nothing by arguing with my request from Newtek for that info. Except perhaps remove the focus from the fact that Newtek hasn't answered these questions.

jeremyhardin
01-25-2006, 04:52 PM
Jeremy, I've passed along the information that the team is willing to share at this time, and when the team provides additional information, I will pass that along as well, or another staff member will. We can appreciate that many people would like more detailed information than just that we are working on the port and our commitment that we will complete that in the timeliest fashion that can be managed, but that's all that we feel would be appropriate to say at this time.

As for NewTek asking for information from customers, I'm asking because I'm interested and I'd also like to pass it along and see if development might, on consideration, like to respond with some information for users.

Thanks Chuck. I understand that you personally are not responsible for what is and is not shared, so thanks for your patience with these threads.

That's not to say that some word on the specific issues I asked about above would not be welcomed and appreciated, as it very much would be appreciated. I (and perhaps others) still feel that a mac-specific 'response' to recent events including but not limited to info requested above would be appropriate.

Hardwater
01-26-2006, 02:51 AM
I feel your pain Jeremy.

Seeing other companies running on Mactels already is rough.

Also the fact that Newtek has to ask customers for Mactel tests tells me that they didn't even purchase one yet to get things rolling.

Why can a studio get this done but NOT a 3d company that wants to be a top competitor?

Sorry for dragging this out but i'm more worried about MACLW future than LW.

paul summers
01-26-2006, 04:51 AM
Chuck are you saying that Newtek do not have a Intel Mac for development.

Did Newtek not get a development kit from Apple?


Thanks

Unwanted
01-26-2006, 08:08 AM
Why is Jeremy get grief? I've seen him post his questions and concerns about this here and elsewhere and I'm glad he is taking the forefront on this because he sounds pretty knowledgeable.

No news for a long enough time does start to sound like bad news. Hopefully we'll here something, even if it's vague, about running on Mactels.

Chuck
01-26-2006, 09:21 AM
Chuck are you saying that Newtek do not have a Intel Mac for development.

Did Newtek not get a development kit from Apple?


Thanks

I said nothing of the sort. Referring to other comments in this thread, I also said very clearly that asking folks what results they are having was my own notion - I'm curious about it, and I'm reasonably sure the development team would be interested as well.

Drawing wild inferences from casual questions is really not productive for anyone. The crew has plenty of Macs, has had access to prototype Mac Intel systems, and is in the process of acquiring a batch of new Macs for the entire team now that the exciting new shipping models are out.

I think the team will be able to provide more detailed info about the XCode port and when to expect the UB version of LightWave after v9.0 ships. Please note that I'm not saying immediately after - I expect the team will have to catch it's collective breath and take some time to refine the plans for the coming 9.x cycles. I will respond to no questions whatsoever regarding the preceding two sentences, nor to any inferences, wild or domesticated. :)

Unwanted
01-26-2006, 09:45 AM
Good news about having Mactels in house.
Drawing a wild inference got us a good report. :thumbsup:

Hardwater
01-26-2006, 10:34 AM
Well, with the tight lips all we have is assumptions to make.

Just that info alone would have kept me happy. Why not share this kind of info? Why not tells us your results on Mactels with 8.x.

All we want is a little assurance and info.

Puguglybonehead
01-26-2006, 01:13 PM
I was wondering if anyone out there knows of a benchmark page that has results for current applications being run under Rosetta. I'd be curious to see how well Apple has done with supporting backward compatibility during this transition.

I could live with Rosetta emulation (if it's stable). A new MacTel iMac would still be insanely fast compared to my iBook G3 (don't laugh, I'm poor :( ). Hopefully LW 9.5 will be Xcode.....

Ade
01-26-2006, 05:33 PM
Actually I was quoted in another thread, from a post last September, where we had noted that the information current at that time did not indicate that there would be Intel Macs available at the time LightWave 9 shipped, so there were no plans to have a universal binary version of v9.0. The team has said that work is being done to port to XCode and that we will offer support for Intel Macs in a future update, via Universal Binaries. The team has so far not announced any change with regard to these plans.

Has anyone here tried LightWave on the new Macs, or seen reports from anyone who has? If so, what have the results been?


Shouldnt Apple be sending you guys intel macs to test on way in advanced to release?

Kuzey
01-26-2006, 05:45 PM
Shouldnt Apple be sending you guys intel macs to test on way in advanced to release?

Read Chuck's above post:

"Drawing wild inferences from casual questions is really not productive for anyone. The crew has plenty of Macs, has had access to prototype Mac Intel systems, and is in the process of acquiring a batch of new Macs for the entire team now that the exciting new shipping models are out."

Kuzey

DiscreetFX
01-28-2006, 06:43 PM
Good job Chuck, I am sure Newtek is working hard to get new versions of Lightwave 3D done and working on both Win & Mac. They have a great hard working team @ Newtek and produce great software & hardware.