PDA

View Full Version : Why I'm not upgrading.



james767
01-26-2006, 02:40 PM
First things Lightwave is way too expensive it should be priced at $499 and $99 for upgrades.

The modeler should be included in the layout and the whole thing needs to be rewritten with workflow in mind. This is a must and was done in the early days because the lack of computing power and the fact that Lightwave and modeler were developed as two separate programs by two separate authors. By the way the authors of these programs have moved on.

The product is unstable at times because of its plug-in nature.

Lightwave has had a long run and will go down in history. retire Lightwave and come out with something new. NewTek's other products are superb and they just need to move on.

kopperdrake
01-26-2006, 03:00 PM
An obviously well thought through posting with some educated reasoning behind those very valid points.

Unless you're being sarcastic?

Dunk

beverins
01-26-2006, 03:00 PM
Thanks for your opinion, but I label you a Troll, sir.

james767
01-26-2006, 03:05 PM
An obviously well thought through posting with some educated reasoning behind those very valid points.

Unless you're being sarcastic?

Dunk
thanks but it's with a heavy heart I make such comments.

kopperdrake
01-26-2006, 03:11 PM
You *are* joking - please tell me it was a joke.

Perhaps this is a thread to get rid of? I feel someone's going to get flamed like mad for this. I'm all for constructive criticism but this is just banal :twak:

Intuition
01-26-2006, 03:22 PM
Well, I am not sure what kind of guidelines or even relative parameters you are using for making this judgement?

Are they guidelines the rest of us can relate to?

Modeler will be a part of layout soon. I prefer them seperate but having them integrated would get rid of ram usage as far as sharing oject and image data over two programs. Yet having more tools loaded at the same time may shore up that gain.

You know, to be specific I would like you to point to any program that has a faster workflow then Lightwave.

Nothing against the Maya or 3d studio Max users here (as I also use these programs for little things here and there) but I have seen so many Maya people come through the studio and not be able to do work as fast or as high quality in the time given as Lightwave.

There is the last %10 that the other programs can give you better then Lightwave can out of the box but by then the only examples you have are like Gollum from Lord of the rings which is not an out of the box situation nor is it a one man creation either.

Heck, I'd like some motion capture sensors included with lightwave too but be realistic.

Look, you don't want to buy into LW in the future. Thats your decision and I respect that. Yet I don't really see an example were there is a program with better workflow.

Can you give me one?

geothefaust
01-26-2006, 03:28 PM
You *are* joking - please tell me it was a joke.

Perhaps this is a thread to get rid of? I feel someone's going to get flamed like mad for this. I'm all for constructive criticism but this is just banal :twak:
Indeed. :dito:

LW, like any other program has it's faults. But really, the things the main poster said, seem rather triffle. How, and what are you basing your pricing structure? I think that is one of the most purposterous ideas I've heard about pricing in some time. LW's pricing, in my humble opinion, seems to be at a great deal.

:tsktsk: :2guns: 8/

hrgiger
01-26-2006, 03:36 PM
Sorry to see you go.

Oh wait, I meant don't let the door hit you on the [email protected] on the way out.

DigiLusionist
01-26-2006, 03:51 PM
James, I can see your point. I even agree with most of them. LW needs a complete overhaul. It appears it is moving in that direction.

Chris S. (Fez)
01-26-2006, 03:55 PM
Reserve judgment till 9 is released.

james767
01-26-2006, 03:59 PM
James, I can see your point. I even agree with most of them. LW needs a complete overhaul. It appears it is moving in that direction.


thanks. I know I'm being harsh but I see NewTek come out with brilliant innovative products and it's up to us to push them and tell them what we want. I wasn't going for politically correct

Chris S. (Fez)
01-26-2006, 04:05 PM
How about some courtesy if not political correctness? Wait till the team's latest release before tainting the forums with your doom n gloom. It is like writing a film review for a film you have not seen...

james767
01-26-2006, 04:11 PM
How about some courtesy if not political correctness? Wait till the team's latest release before tainting the forums with your doom n gloom. It is like writing a film review for a film you have not seen...


after watching Rocky 5. I didn't have much hope for Rocky 6. :hey: what do I know anyway?? let's wait and see but I'm getting old and I've put lots of faith and time in this product.

jaxtone
01-26-2006, 04:20 PM
Its great to not be politically correct... the opposite is just bad food for the masses.

Imagination is more important than knowledge.
Albert Einstein

J

Chris S. (Fez)
01-26-2006, 04:30 PM
after watching Rocky 5. I didn't have much hope for Rocky 6. :hey: what do I know anyway?? let's wait and see but I'm getting old and I've put lots of faith and time in this product.

Touche! :D

Kuzey
01-26-2006, 04:32 PM
Politically correctness is one thing...being unrealistic is another thing all together.

The LW price is probably the best on the market....however, you will get your wish when Inspire 3D comes out.


Kuzey

Vincenzo
01-26-2006, 04:50 PM
In response to James767 who states:

"First things Lightwave is way too expensive it should be priced at $499 and $99 for upgrades."

Too expensive is a relative thing. I think that LW is a good value relative to its competitors. Of course some people would like developers to work for free.

James767 states:
"The modeler should be included in the layout and the whole thing needs to be rewritten with workflow in mind. This is a must and was done in the early days because the lack of computing power and the fact that Lightwave and modeler were developed as two separate programs by two separate authors. By the way the authors of these programs have moved on."

I actually like having modeler seperate, but in v9.0, LW will allow user to model within modeler or layout so we get to choose.

James767 states:
"The product is unstable at times because of its plug-in nature."

So you would prefer having an app that was not extensible via plugins? Perhaps you would prefer one monolithic app which had to be totally rewritten and recompiled to add any functionality? Also if allowing plugins is so bad, why do so many apps support them? IMHO LW 8.0 is stable.

Many people have questioned LWs future since the old development team left, but I for one feel that NT has delivered some significant functionality in LW 8.5 and if NT delivers all projected enhancements in LW 9.0 then those questions will be answered.


Sincerely, Vincenzo aka Dr. V

james767
01-26-2006, 05:18 PM
In response to James767 who states:


I actually like having modeler seperate, but in v9.0, LW will allow user to model within modeler or layout so we get to choose.

James767 states:
"The product is unstable at times because of its plug-in nature."

So you would prefer having an app that was not extensible via plugins? Perhaps you would prefer one monolithic app which had to be totally rewritten and recompiled to add any functionality? Also if allowing plugins is so bad, why do so many apps support them? IMHO LW 8.0 is stable.


Sincerely, Vincenzo aka Dr. V

Hi

First thing if you read the lightwave 9 specs you'll see that some of the modeling functionality will be in layout but not all. I don't know what 9 going to look like but if I have to go to a separate program to make a box to put it in my scene Ahhh!! Yay maybe there's a plug-in somewhere to do this but... Lightwave has separate modeling and animation... Everybody else does not..... It's not a feature it's retarded!

the old team is rewriting from the ground up a whole new 3D application based on innovation.
James

Kuzey
01-26-2006, 05:31 PM
Hi

First thing if you read the lightwave 9 specs you'll see that some of the modeling functionality will be in layout but not all. I don't know what 9 going to look like but if I have to go to a separate program to make a box to put it in my scene Ahhh!! Yay maybe there's a plug-in somewhere to do this but... Lightwave has separate modeling and animation... Everybody else does not..... It's not a feature it's retarded!

the old team is rewriting from the ground up a whole new 3D application based on innovation.

First you call Lightwave retarded then you praise the old team for copying Newtek by having separate programs...but the render part hasn't been finished yet.


Why aren't you complaining about that and shouldn't it's price be $99, since it's just a LW plugin :stop:

Time to detele this thread I think!!

Kuzey

Thor Simpson
01-26-2006, 05:31 PM
Too expensive? With the NEW pricing?!?! You have to be kidding.

Gaze
01-26-2006, 05:33 PM
...Lightwave is way too expensive it should be priced at $499 and $99 for upgrades.
Was actually cheaper than that,
considering $579 Vue + $199 LWCAD and $0.00 upgrade to [9]

Really a smokin' deal

james767
01-26-2006, 05:36 PM
Hi
I didn't say Lightwave was retarded but having two separate programs that should do same thing is dysfunctional!

you can delete my posts but silencing me isn't going to make lightwave improve it will only make people feel a little better. look the people on this board seemed very insecure about lightwave in general. This should not be the case all this needs is some right direction and some right development. And then I will be proved wrong which I hope I am. All I'm doing is trying to point out the obvious and there's a lot of people who agree with me.



First you call Lightwave retarded then you praise the old team for copying Newtek by having separate programs...but the render part hasn't been finished yet.


Why aren't you complaining about that and shouldn't it's price be $99, since it's just a LW plugin :stop:

Time to detele this thread I think!!

Kuzey

james767
01-26-2006, 05:37 PM
Was actually cheaper than that,
considering $579 Vue + $199 LWCAD and $0.00 upgrade to [9]

Really a smokin' deal
yes it is a good deal but I want to upgrade Lightwave I don't need any more marketing tricks that's all it is.

hrgiger
01-26-2006, 05:41 PM
Hi

First thing if you read the lightwave 9 specs you'll see that some of the modeling functionality will be in layout but not all. I don't know what 9 going to look like but if I have to go to a separate program to make a box to put it in my scene Ahhh!! Yay maybe there's a plug-in somewhere to do this but... Lightwave has separate modeling and animation... Everybody else does not..... It's not a feature it's retarded!

the old team is rewriting from the ground up a whole new 3D application based on innovation.
James

Ok, barring the fact that this whole thread is IMO a trolling one, I'm going to give a somewhat serious response...

As far as modeling in layout goes, yes, not all of modelers functionality will be available in Layout yet. It seems to me they are headed in that direction however but as has been stated by Jay Roth, the restructuring of Lightwave has been a gradual one and this is just the first step in bring the modeler core into Layout. Secondly, please tell me that the ability to create a box in Layout is not the best example you can come up with on why modeler and Layout should be one program. I can see it now, Zoic studios drops Lightwave as their app of choice because they really needed to make a box in Layout but couldn't do it directly. Puh-leez. Personally, and I know a lot of users that feel this way, I like having seperate modeling and animation environments but I like that 9 is giving us more options then what we've had in the past.

And that old team that is writing their new app from the ground up? Well, those are the geniuses who designed this "retarded" seperate layout and modeler. The current Newtek development staff is just cleaning up their retarded mess.

prospector
01-26-2006, 06:00 PM
It's amazing that such a dysfunctional program has done so much since ST:TNG for movies TV and us home users.
Someone should have told me that all that is impossable for a 2 app program.
I've wasted 14 years doing nothing but spinning my wheels waiting for LW to become 1 app.

Now I gotta go back and give all the money I've made back to the customers for giving them a sorry product from this dysfunctional program.

I sure hope the IRS gives me back all the taxes I've paid on it.

Kuzey
01-26-2006, 06:02 PM
You still didn't answer my question??

Trolls should be deleted/banned.

If you were at all serious then fine but all you are doing is trolling. This has nothing to do with Lightwave.

I think trolls are the insecure ones. You should have asked LW to be $1.50 and the upgrade $.50.

Kuzey

StereoMike
01-26-2006, 06:28 PM
I feel sorry for you, if the actual pricing is out of range for you. I really do, cause you seem to be interested in 3D, and there's not much out there at the price you mentioned. So you either spend some time on saving some money and upgrade to 9.0 or you spend a few bucks less on oil paint and brushes and start painting that way.
OK, or you take Blender. Maybe that's an alternative for you.
But a full out-of-the-box solution...less "expensive" than LW...? And you want even more features and everything fits exactly to your personal needs...?
Can you imagine how an app looks like, that tries to be everything to everyone?
(oops- not a good point *kicks himself*)

And all the talk about good motivation:

you can delete my posts but silencing me isn't going to make lightwave improve it will only make people feel a little better.
This thread won't improve or enlighten anyone... so I guess we stick to the sarcastic thing.
That way we could get some fun out of it at least :D

Mike

Captain Obvious
01-26-2006, 07:00 PM
If NewTek ever rewrites Lightwave from the ground up, Lightwave is finished. Dead. Gone. Obsolete. Trust me, they do NOT want to make a complete rewrite.

PeteF
01-26-2006, 07:18 PM
yak yak yak whine whine whine... etc

Jeez man, if you don't like it, just buy something else.

prospector
01-26-2006, 07:22 PM
Captain Obvious
Don't even say that in jest, someone might get the idea that it could be done.
and we would have to go thru that LW6 fiasco again :twak:

DigiLusionist
01-26-2006, 08:38 PM
Dear Lord. It's threads like this, where pack mentality overcomes civility, that make me avoid this forum.

Grow a pair, people, and allow others who have differing views of the product to speak their piece. They have every right as forum members to do so. James isn't trolling. He's expressing his views.

[email protected], this is really amateurish...

AbnRanger
01-26-2006, 08:52 PM
You had to be smoking a fat one when you said LW is overpriced!!! In just one decent job IT PAYS FOR ITSELF!
JUST ONE! That's not even mentioning Vue 5 (retails for $600) and LW CAD ($200). They are giving us the shirts off their backs, for the love of Peter, Paul, and Mary.
Yet you say it's a "Marketing Trick?" Well, their "TRICK" worked on me...and I'm sure a few thousand more.

Secondly, it takes 3ds Max (which I like as well, BTW) about 2 minutes to fully load up (because it's integrated and all the plugins it has). LW loads in about 3-4 seconds! I can switch to layout from modeler and back, a few dozen times within that stretch.

Thirdly, as HR just stated, Jay Roth mentioned that THEY ARE OVERHAULING LW...they have deemed it best to do so in stages. What more can you expect in that regard?
I'm sure they are responding vigorously to programs like Modo a Silo hitting the market, and between 9 and 10 we will see some tremendous changes made...for the better.
Some of us will feel like kids on Christmas morning after taking 9's Renderer and SubD's for a spin. Just give the folks a chance.
If you want to pay A LOT more for just a little more...go ahead. And if you want to pay a little less for A LOT less...knock yourself out. From now on, none of us will bother with trying to persuade you to do otherwise.

AbnRanger
01-26-2006, 08:58 PM
Dear Lord. It's threads like this, where pack mentality overcomes civility, that make me avoid this forum.

Grow a pair, people, and allow others who have differing views of the product to speak their piece. They have every right as forum members to do so. James isn't trolling. He's expressing his views.

[email protected], this is really amateurish...
What's amatuerish about the majority EXPRESSING their views as well? You felt justified in criticizing some of our sentiments...so why can no one else but you and James state their opinions?

DigiLusionist
01-26-2006, 09:01 PM
Hey, Ab, this kind of asinine behavior has been going on here for years. Which is why I rarely come here anymore.

I'm of the mind LW needs improvements. I think its price is great. I've already upgraded. However, I think James should be able to express himself here without the usual gang of LW defenders coming out with pitchforks, shouting him down.

THAT is amateurish.

Mha8649
01-27-2006, 04:41 PM
This is one of the funniest threads I've ever read .... maybe he would be happy if they would accept food stamps. Then the price would be right. I too agree this thread should be deleted. I think the price is great.

mattclary
01-27-2006, 05:04 PM
troll

v.,n. 1. [From the Usenet group alt.folklore.urban] To
utter a posting on Usenet designed to attract predictable
responses or flames; or, the post itself. Derives from the phrase
"trolling for newbies" which in turn comes from mainstream
"trolling", a style of fishing in which one trails bait through a
likely spot hoping for a bite. The well-constructed troll is a post
that induces lots of newbies and flamers to make themselves look
even more clueless than they already do, while subtly conveying to
the more savvy and experienced that it is in fact a deliberate
troll. If you don't fall for the joke, you get to be in on it. See
also YHBT. 2. An individual who chronically trolls in sense 1;
regularly posts specious arguments, flames or personal attacks to a
newsgroup, discussion list, or in email for no other purpose than to
annoy someone or disrupt a discussion. Trolls are recognizable by
the fact that the have no real interest in learning about the topic
at hand - they simply want to utter flame bait. Like the ugly
creatures they are named after, they exhibit no redeeming
characteristics, and as such, they are recognized as a lower form of
life on the net, as in, "Oh, ignore him, he's just a troll."

jeremyhardin
01-27-2006, 05:14 PM
troll

v.,n. 1. [From the Usenet group alt.folklore.urban] To
utter a posting on Usenet designed to attract predictable
responses or flames; or, the post itself. Derives from the phrase
"trolling for newbies" which in turn comes from mainstream
"trolling", a style of fishing in which one trails bait through a
likely spot hoping for a bite. The well-constructed troll is a post
that induces lots of newbies and flamers to make themselves look
even more clueless than they already do, while subtly conveying to
the more savvy and experienced that it is in fact a deliberate
troll. If you don't fall for the joke, you get to be in on it. See
also YHBT. 2. An individual who chronically trolls in sense 1;
regularly posts specious arguments, flames or personal attacks to a
newsgroup, discussion list, or in email for no other purpose than to
annoy someone or disrupt a discussion. Trolls are recognizable by
the fact that the have no real interest in learning about the topic
at hand - they simply want to utter flame bait. Like the ugly
creatures they are named after, they exhibit no redeeming
characteristics, and as such, they are recognized as a lower form of
life on the net, as in, "Oh, ignore him, he's just a troll."
very funny and mostly true definition. i disagree with the statement that anyone who disagrees with the 'troll' is a newbie, flamer or clueless though. :D

mattclary
01-27-2006, 05:22 PM
Yeah, i disagree with that part too, but just copied and pasted off websters.com

Darrell
01-27-2006, 06:11 PM
Maybe you should consider downloading Pov-Ray, its free, & has a very good render engine;)

james767
01-27-2006, 06:19 PM
Maybe you should consider downloading Pov-Ray, its free, & has a very good render engine;)

Thanks but I will get SOFTIMAGE|XSI v.5.0 Foundation it's $495 :hey: :angel: :cat:


bul·ly1 P Pronunciation Key (bl)
n. pl. bul·lies
A person who is habitually cruel or overbearing, especially to smaller or weaker people.
A hired ruffian; a thug.
A pimp.
Archaic. A fine person.
Archaic. A sweetheart.

v. bul·lied, bul·ly·ing, bul·lies
v. tr.
To treat in an overbearing or intimidating manner. See Synonyms at intimidate.
To make (one's way) aggressively.

v. intr.
To behave like a bully.
To force one's way aggressively or by intimidation: “They bully into line at the gas pump” (Martin Gottfried).

jeremyhardin
01-27-2006, 06:25 PM
"Oh, ignore him, he's just a troll."

alvin_cgi
01-27-2006, 07:34 PM
[QUOTE=james767]Thanks but I will get SOFTIMAGE|XSI v.5.0 Foundation it's $495 :hey: :angel: :cat:
QUOTE]

Go get it :) , and don't forget maintenance fee? :deal:

mattclary
01-27-2006, 07:36 PM
Deleted.

I should try to be nicer in life... :angel:

hrgiger
01-27-2006, 07:37 PM
Good one Jeremy...

loki74
01-27-2006, 07:45 PM
Thanks but I will get SOFTIMAGE|XSI v.5.0 Foundation it's $495 :hey: :angel: :cat:

So go and get it, and stop posting here. What the he1ll are you waiting for?

Maybe I should start a thread, "Why I don't care what your opinion on [9] is."

Mha8649
01-27-2006, 08:11 PM
"Oh, ignore him, he's just a troll."


I have a few other names for him... :devil:
I'm sure that the majority of the people that paid for L.W did a little bit of research before they bought it so there's no reason to come to a web site of a program you don't care for and start posting ignorant comments.
I for one do not like poser I've only tried version 6 but it ran really slow.
But I dont goto a discussion forum to say to everyone that likes poser that it should only cost a quarter and it's retarded. That would make me very ignorant. They can make there own opinions.

kohlrabi_croce
01-27-2006, 08:35 PM
You still didn't answer my question??

Trolls should be deleted/banned.

If you were at all serious then fine but all you are doing is trolling. This has nothing to do with Lightwave.

I think trolls are the insecure ones. You should have asked LW to be $1.50 and the upgrade $.50.

Kuzey

You got the definition of a troll wrong. A troll is somebody who posts
jsut to get people riled up. So, to accuse anybody who criticizes LW
on a LW forum of b eing a troll could have you assuming facts not in
evidence. I don;t get the impression this guy just wants attention.
What;s the matter? Why can;t you stand it if anybody says anything
against LW? Differing opinions should be allowed.

toby
01-27-2006, 09:15 PM
I don't think he posted *just* to get people riled up, otherwise he wouldn't have come back and responded, but I don't consider his whining to be 'opinion' either.

Acting as if his opinion that modeler should be part of layout is a fact, presuming that anything priced higher than what he feels like paying is a rip-off, ignoring common-sense replies, saying that free 3D software is useless, these are not respectable opinions, they're childish bitching and moaning.

Kuzey
01-27-2006, 09:17 PM
You got the definition of a troll wrong. A troll is somebody who posts
jsut to get people riled up. So, to accuse anybody who criticizes LW
on a LW forum of b eing a troll could have you assuming facts not in
evidence. I don;t get the impression this guy just wants attention.
What;s the matter? Why can;t you stand it if anybody says anything
against LW? Differing opinions should be allowed.

You got me wrong but that's fine by me.

Going by your statement he is a troll as the first thing he said is the price is expensive. expensive compared to what...a packet of chips?? a crack version of LW?? Compared to other apps LW is a pretty good buy,especially now.

Form there on it went down hill and he was never serious about his concerns, he just wanted to as you say "get people riled up".

Anybody can talk about the good or bad about Lightwave if they want. That I don't mind...infact I'd love to see it. You can't just say something that's unrealistic or stupid and complain about the response.


Kuzey

james767
01-27-2006, 11:20 PM
No the reasons why I say these things because I care about Lightwave. See back in the DAY Lightwave was not just not another program it was a revolution and a lot of us worked very hard to bring it to market promote it and use it.. It did not only create opportunities but it also created a market that didn't exist before. A lot of programs in the past were priced over $10,000 and didn't do much and then along came Lightwave and the video toaster. These revolutionary products shook the industry so much that today we have cheap software. Softimage is $495 because of Lightwave. But for the past years NT has left this brilliant product to Langer and to be sold with other software like it's some sort of bargain basement deal. We used to clamor for new versions now it seems like we're just drawnout and milked for money. But I'm not going to sit around put on my rose colored glasses and live in the past. I care too much about the product to just sit on the sidelines and pretend like there's nothing wrong. we can do better! now maybe I'm wrong Lightwave 9 may come out and we may get back on track-

prove me wrong NT!. Live up to the once imaginative creative and ingenious people who created such products. :newtek: :newtek: :lwicon: :lwicon: :newtek: :lwicon: :newtek: :newtek: :vticon: :vticon:


Now I may upset people and people may call me a troll but thats how I see it!

loki74
01-27-2006, 11:26 PM
You got the definition of a troll wrong. A troll is somebody who posts
jsut to get people riled up. So, to accuse anybody who criticizes LW
on a LW forum of b eing a troll could have you assuming facts not in
evidence. I don;t get the impression this guy just wants attention.
What;s the matter? Why can;t you stand it if anybody says anything
against LW? Differing opinions should be allowed.

If you want to put this in terms of "evidence," consider this--what the OP said is irrelevant evidence. If he is switching to a different program, there is no reason for him to annouce his reasons or even the fact that he is leaving. Or is he just that important?

Chris S. (Fez)
01-28-2006, 01:56 AM
No the reasons why I say these things because I care about Lightwave. See back in the DAY Lightwave was not just not another program it was a revolution and a lot of us worked very hard to bring it to market promote it and use it.. It did not only create opportunities but it also created a market that didn't exist before. A lot of programs in the past were priced over $10,000 and didn't do much and then along came Lightwave and the video toaster. These revolutionary products shook the industry so much that today we have cheap software. Softimage is $495 because of Lightwave. But for the past years NT has left this brilliant product to Langer and to be sold with other software like it's some sort of bargain basement deal. We used to clamor for new versions now it seems like we're just drawnout and milked for money. But I'm not going to sit around put on my rose colored glasses and live in the past. I care too much about the product to just sit on the sidelines and pretend like there's nothing wrong. we can do better! now maybe I'm wrong Lightwave 9 may come out and we may get back on track-

prove me wrong NT!. Live up to the once imaginative creative and ingenious people who created such products. :newtek: :newtek: :lwicon: :lwicon: :newtek: :lwicon: :newtek: :newtek: :vticon: :vticon:


Now I may upset people and people may call me a troll but thats how I see it!

If you want to express an opinion, fine, but speak for yourself. Lightwave could be better but it is still a capable package used by many professionals.

It seems clear to me, from Newtek's LW 9 correspondance, that they are aware of Lightwave's weaknesses and are doing their best to catch up with and surpass the competition wherever they can. Have you read this?:

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

MrWyatt
01-28-2006, 02:31 AM
Thanks but I will get SOFTIMAGE|XSI v.5.0 Foundation it's $495

That´s a nice start , but realize that when you want to go deep into what xsi can offer you´ll have to upgrade to essentials or even advanced eventually. which is more like 1.995,- or 6.995,- respectively. So what is your point in that. Don´t get me wrong. xsi is a fine package i believe, but to really be able to beat the competition featurewise you´ll need a whole lot more than 495,-.

and by the way, the others are right, you are indeed a troll. one of the lowest kind i´m affraid. but then again, thats just my opinion

I personally think LW could do a lot better and that it has to catch up big time to really kick some other app´s butt, but as long as it does what i need I´ll stick with it. But then I´ve allways been a multiapp user. who knows maybe soon I will buy xsi essentials just to grow the range of software I use on a dayly basis.

prospector
01-28-2006, 02:44 AM
Boy this sounds like the seperatists are going to get thier way..WOO HOOO !!!Modeling capabilities have been implemented in Layout by extracting the mesh-editing core from Modeler, and moving it into a common location where Layout and Modeler both have access.

That sounds like they increased the power of the HUB !!!!!

Cuz in the next paragraph they say the modeler will still be it's own proggy. Like Layout.
Just talking better with each other.
and this;
and they can retain that workflow with Modeler, as NewTek will continue to develop and provide this unique dedicated environment for model creation.

A dream come true............mmmmmmmmmmmmm seperate

I gotta have a truckload of Krispy Kremes delivered to them.....

juice
01-28-2006, 04:53 AM
The modeler should be included in the layout and the whole thing needs to be rewritten with workflow in mind. This is a must and was done in the early days because the lack of computing power and the fact that Lightwave and modeler were developed as two separate programs by two separate authors. By the way the authors of these programs have moved on.

The product is unstable at times because of its plug-in nature.

Lightwave has had a long run and will go down in history. retire Lightwave and come out with something new. NewTek's other products are superb and they just need to move on.



I was paying for my update after reading this... (from 01 august 2005) Newsletter (http://www.newtek.com/lightwave/newsletters/v2-n7/index.html)



NewTek's development team is implementing a major rewrite and restructuring of LightWave's core with the addition of mesh editing capabilities to Layout, consolidation and enhancement of tools in Modeler, extraction of the renderer from the Layout module, rewrite of the raytracing routines to newer, much faster algorithms, and implementation of adaptive mesh subdivision based on distance-to-camera and visibility. Modeler's toolset is being updated with true edge support throughout, and subdivision surfaces have been re-engineered for improved performance and n-gon support.

juice
01-28-2006, 05:04 AM
That´s a nice start , but realize that when you want to go deep into what xsi can offer you´ll have to upgrade to essentials or even advanced eventually. which is more like 1.995,- or 6.995,- respectively. So what is your point in that. Don´t get me wrong. xsi is a fine package i believe, but to really be able to beat the competition featurewise you´ll need a whole lot more than 495,-.

.


... compare here (http://www.softimage.com/products/Xsi/v5/comparison/default.asp) the modules what you get and what not

Kuzey
01-28-2006, 05:24 AM
There's also a good deal on Hexagon 1.2 and Carrara 5 Bundle for $299.

I've got Hexagon on my maybe list...it's one cool little app, just needs support for the lw format.

:dance:

Kuzey

Dodgy
01-28-2006, 05:38 AM
Not sure I really read it that way prosp :)

I think it just means all the modeller calls have been extracted into a .dll which both modeller and layout can call, which doesn't neccesarily mean an expansion of the hub. Hopefully that means pretty much anything you did in modeller can now be done in layout, but it's down to how enmeshed things like symmetry are, though I've been told symmetry has been looked at as well.

MrWyatt
01-28-2006, 06:09 AM
... compare here (http://www.softimage.com/products/Xsi/v5/comparison/default.asp) the modules what you get and what not

:question:

If you think I have not compared you are sertainlly mistaken my friend. I really don´t get the point you try to make here. I really have, on several occasions, seriously thought about adding xsi to my pile of software I use, and after having compared the differences between foundation, essentials and advanced, i came to the conclusion that the foundation version is too limited to make me happy.

1. no floating license
2. no 64 bit support (how lousy is that, to cut off the 64 bit support just to make people buy essentials)
3. ok you get fluids, cloth, particles and softbodydynamics, but for rigid body dynamics you have to have essentials. hmmm
4. no batchrendering
5. no compositing (that one I can understand that they cut it out of the foundation. It´s just too cool)

So for me, I would never buy Foundation because of the lacks it has. but then again maybe there are plenty guys out there that need no more than 3 rendernodes and one license that is tied to a single machine. So you would have to have a superfast boxx notebook for the luxory to work on it where ever you want.

juice
01-28-2006, 06:40 AM
:question:

1. no floating license
2. no 64 bit support (how lousy is that, to cut off the 64 bit support just to make people buy essentials)
3. ok you get fluids, cloth, particles and softbodydynamics, but for rigid body dynamics you have to have essentials. hmmm
4. no batchrendering
5. no compositing (that one I can understand that they cut it out of the foundation. It´s just too cool)
.


... have you floating license for Lightwave ? I have to switch my XSI-Dongle same as I do with Lightwave if I switch my computer, have you compositing in Lightwave? I can only change forderground, backround and alpha with composeting-modul in Lightwave, thats something I can do in XSI without composeting-modul. 999 CPUs is something speaking for Lightwave, but slow render engine for GI is my opinion compared with MR. With 64bit there are a lot of problems with drivers till now. I switched from 64bit to xp because of different software crashes and problems.




edit: In XSI there is old stuff, that is promised for new stuff in Lightwave 9 like Ngons, Edge-Modeling, SubsurfaceScatering, better DisplacementMapping support for Zbrush, Animation-Tools, and so on... I hope I can get that stuff fast in Lightwave, because I love Lightwave. But it is the realety that other apps are really close to features and pricing of Lightwave and they develope faster to the needs of the users as newtek is doing... (my opinion) and this is why some guys here are crying,
newtek should act and not waiting...

hrgiger
01-28-2006, 08:03 AM
That's the problem I feel is with buying tiered packages like Maya or XSI. If you buy into the low end, evntually you will want more and end up buying the high end. You're pretty much locked out of certain features and future growth because otherwise, how could they justifiy ever asking you to spend more for the advanced versions?

Darrell
01-28-2006, 10:41 AM
what is up with the name calling???...do we have to go there???...if he doesn't like NT pricing fine, I'm pretty sure NT don't care...they're too busy trying to improve their tools & keep their customers happy...this topic should of been closed 3 pages ago :sleeping:

faulknermano
01-28-2006, 10:58 AM
You're pretty much locked out of certain features and future growth because otherwise, how could they justifiy ever asking you to spend more for the advanced versions?

well, i dont know about you, but for me, i havent gotten to exploring all of the features of LW or Maya Complete. i cant say that i'll ever need "advanced features", but i havent the absolute need to utilise them. some people, i observe, want to buy the best stuff just for the sake of buying the best stuff, or they buy the most stuff for the sake of buying the most stuff. sometimes people buy not because they *need* it, but simply because they feel that they're crippled because they do not possess a feature that is already available.

btw: i'd rather think of software as more than just a feature list, though. there's more to it than that. it's the workflow environment, how things work.

mattclary
01-28-2006, 11:42 AM
No the reasons why I say these things because I care about Lightwave.

Wish I had a dollar for every time a troll has said that.

hrgiger
01-28-2006, 11:47 AM
I guess faulk I just meant to say with Lightwave for example, it didn't have edges or ngons for the longest time but I guess I had hoped that eventually we would have them. Now we are getting them in the next release. But if we were on a tiered level package and I had a foundation version, I might wonder if we would ever get them or if they might appear in one of the higher end versions. I like thinking that with Lightwave, there's nothing that necessarily off limits.

Nemoid
01-28-2006, 01:11 PM
I can clearly see some of Jason reasons , but I think Nt cannot do a similar rewrite if not doing it gradually, like should be happening now.:)

Sure, Lw should be integrated into an unique platform and use a different structure to allow more flexibility. complete modeler/layout integration; it should have an opened SDK - plugin structure is very good, if they can be integrated very well , and work with each other seamlessly.

there are some good points for Lw tho. points that make of it a good solution still now.

the price structure is good. you get unlimited render nodes for a cheap price. you get good modelling tools , even with some limitations (that should disappear with 9.0) to produce cool models.
its not that ngons and edges are the holy grail in modelling. how the heck many good modellers reach their quality without them to produce astonishing models however?

Lw rendering is good for its quality and you have all the tools at your disposal to get your job done.

workflow is quite good and easy to grasp in many areas.
some more organization would be of help, but its not
an obstacle that stops you from producing.

these things are very important, because ease of use and good results
allow users to compete with more featured apps, with a more complex workflow and in which even simple things are more difficult to
achieve than in Lw.


So, i'm not saying that Lw have not to be enhanced. there are alot of areas that would benefit from huge enhancements, like for example CA, but it isnt realistic asking for those enhancements like if there is some sort of magic wand to make them happen, and not considering that a gradual approach is the only possible to make Lw stay in the market and in the meantime being developed.

i don't think NT can retire Lw, stay away from the market for some year and develop from scratch something completely new. They would loose their whole userbase doing like that.

if some app like XSI, Maya or also Modo suits you better, there's no problem at all. 3D apps aren't a faith AFIK

cresshead
01-28-2006, 04:50 PM
i had to read thru 3 pages to find out just what was the behind the scenes motivation....

his move or proposed move to xsi.....

go for it!...go get xsi...no really!

i have xsi 4.2 foundation..gave it a go seeing as it was so cheap...
and i've now gone thru some digital tutors intro training videos to get myself familiar with it...

my opionon on it is that it's okay...nothing great..just okay..another 3d app.
xsi is however got a bunch of strange workflows and multi-tabbed floating
dialogue boxes which i find difficult to get around..

they also give known everyday itmes some strange re naming...

in max you have mirror...in lw you have mirror
in xsi you have symetery........[mirror]

in max you have instance...in xsi you have instanciate....[yawn!]

there's a load of this type of double speak with just slows down my learning
on xsi...

xsi is okay but i've yet to use it for anything other than a plaything.

the render tree maybe powerful but it's not artist friendly..they need to make it look and work like lw nodal render tree or that of combustion's shematic workflow.


lw is pretty darn cool 'as is'.........
9 will be a good move.......


max is pretty darn cool as is.......


xsi is okay but i'd be scared to upgrade to essentials and then be strangled by the yearly maintanence

maya complete is darn cool....i'm hoping that autodesk will introduce a subscription scheme like that of 3dsmax...otherwise i'd be a scared as a xsi user for the upkeep of it.


cinema 4d sux :D
okay the app is not bad but their module staged pricing is disgusting
and quite underhand

luxologies 'modo' seems to be making a 3d carrot on a stick :tsktsk:
don't throw stones in glass houses.... :thumbsdow
modo 2...?
a renderer???
a animation module????

silo looks great with V2...

z brush might one day get a nice U.I and workflow...thogh i'm hoping that silo will actually be that ui!




:lwicon:

operation
01-28-2006, 07:26 PM
If you are not satisfied by LW ( as me... ).

my advice : buy Xsi foundation ... save your money without upgrading LW ...
Use both applications .

and when you can , upgrade XSI to next level.
Xsi is a good product then don't be afraid by this choise.

Go on CGtalk to share your point of view and experience (or any other forum).
the Newtek Forum is not the better place to make comments ( too much Lw's fan here), you will spend more time to argue or be insulted.

Most "professional" Lwers never comes or post here.

If you think that you spend to much time on LW (waiting for features that' never comes). It's better to change, since Newtek team have a lot of work to do to "upgrade all the software" and needs a lot of time.

Then don't expect to have Lw at the same level of Xsi or Maya in 1 or 2 years ...

Nt needs more money for that (more developpers and a lot of time) or enough money to buy advanced technologies.

The LW is old and need to be recoded. To not loose a lot of money (and users) Nt decided to update and rewrite the code step by step ( part by part).
They started by the render engine but there are a lot of work to do like: ( Animation, modeling, shading, radiosity, dynamics. SDK, Lscripts, bugs corrections, documentations, etc.. ) the list is very long.

It will take a lot of time to go in details but to resume:
if a tool doesn't do what you expect, then change (better than have hopes)!
Don't post your opinion here if it's not a compliment ! :)
Lw community has changed ( some are gone, some doesn't share anymore,
some are feed up with ... ). It's not the same as the old time .


cheers!

toby
01-28-2006, 08:01 PM
Go on CGtalk to share your point of view and experience (or any other forum).
the Newtek Forum is not the better place to make comments ( too much Lw's fan here), you will spend more time to argue or be insulted.


Well if all you want to do is complain about LW, then yes, you're much more likely to get away with it on a non-LW specific site.

But if you actually want help, this is by far the best place to get it. If you want to make suggestions or requests, there's obviously no other place than here.



Most "professional" Lwers never comes or post here.


That's either hopelessly uneducated, or an outright lie. At least half the people I see here make their living with LW.

fyrissian
01-28-2006, 08:41 PM
*sigh* Threads like this are rather like train wrecks. I keep reading them, knowing in advance pretty much what I'll see, and that I won't like it, and that I'll be ashamed of myself for looking anyway.

Must... stop... reading!

DigiLusionist
01-28-2006, 09:08 PM
There's no reason why James should not have been able to say his piece without being called a troll and having his opinions derided. None.

His opinions about the pricing are way off, but to trash him is really unnecessary.

I'm disappointed to see that after all these years, the same group of guys are STILL continuing to trounce others with whom they disagree. Whether it's about keeping Modeler and Layout separate, or changing the workflow at all, dissenting opinions just are not allowed here, are they? It's as if keeping LW the way it was in 1998 is so [email protected] important to you guys.

This thread is only as long as it is, and as negative as it is, because of a number of you guys who should know better. And, after biting my tongue for the past eight years, I just have to call you on it.

cc3d
01-28-2006, 10:30 PM
First things Lightwave is way too expensive it should be priced at $499 and $99 for upgrades.

The modeler should be included in the layout and the whole thing needs to be rewritten with workflow in mind. This is a must and was done in the early days because the lack of computing power and the fact that Lightwave and modeler were developed as two separate programs by two separate authors. By the way the authors of these programs have moved on.

The product is unstable at times because of its plug-in nature.

Lightwave has had a long run and will go down in history. retire Lightwave and come out with something new. NewTek's other products are superb and they just need to move on.

So go to Blender and quit whining.

nerdyguy227
01-28-2006, 10:41 PM
I like Lightwave but I know there are many improvements that will make it better than the competition

My list of demands:

1. Lightwave for too long has been using the idea of this "rendering" I think it is time to stop with this garbage and move on to something else, how about instant results. Instead of pushing render and having Lightwave take 3 hours for your GI scene to figure out what it looks like, NT should just program LW to instantly produce a photorealistic image, that way we do not have to wait.

2. LW is a very stable program but I think it is just stupid how it has bugs. The next version should be programmed not to crash

3. Forget 500$ for LW, why just not make it altogether free? Think about it! Just order it and they send you a legal commercial copy without any hassle what-so-ever and your wallet would not be floating after you buy it!

4. Lightwave is way behind the other programs in speed of workflow particularly because it uses the cave man devices I think they called a "mouse and keyboard". Newtek is at a point where to keep ahead of the rest of the competition they MUST include a free mind-reading helmet with every version of Lightwave. This helmet can detect brain-waves and create he object as you think it.

5. To completely solve the problem of time there should be an included device similar to the one in the movie "Clockstoppers" where the computer can simply stop time, complete its task, then start it again. Perhaps a reversible time machine would be useful too so if you need a project completed you can reach into your pocket and pull out a CD of the finished product then later that day you work on it and use the wormhole feature to send it back in time placing it into your pocket at the precise time needed.

6. Dynamics can be improved so anything you want to be created is photorealisticly simulated with the click of your thought

7. I think we endure enough pain through all our work on projects so for each one completed Newtek should pay us a completion fee at the rate of 50$ per min.

8. NT should persuade the government to make our deserved completion fee be tax deductible on the bases of a “negative business expense” so we can buy more free Newtek products

9. Since XSI and Maya are pulling ahead the best way for Newtek to reclaim grounds would be to include a feature that can fix all our problems. An anti-retardation command is defiantly needed at this time so that any project we are working on that needs a box in layout and can only be created in modeler we can unretard so that Lightwave has both programs seamlessly and instantly mesh together.

10. An automatic troll detector is essential. Newtek needs a way to virtually destroy enemies. They must program a feature able to destroy the user if it is detected to be any sort of fictional amphibian with gray hair


If Newtek had at least a single person running it with a quarter of a brain-steam then I am sure they will listen to all my demands since Newtek can not survive without these long awaited improvements.

prospector
01-28-2006, 11:26 PM
nerdyguy227

Concise, to the point and right.

Everything we've seen so far that was 'suposidly' put out by LW has been nothing but a holigraphic image, a figment, a ghost of what could be, a mirage, a fleeting thought, because as we all now know, it was all impossable with a program that is in pieces, it can't be done folks so just throw those copies of LW away, clean your computers, load a program that is all one app, has a lot of little icony thingys, and get some REAL work done.

But maby, just maby, for those diehards who keep LW will get an upgrade bonus of the VT so they can put thier animations, no matter how bad a 2 app program makes them, to DVD, and it would have to be free like LW of course, it should be on the same sliding scale as LW.


And for those in Rio Linda....that was sarcasm

animotion
01-29-2006, 02:14 AM
As long as LW does not eat my ham sandwiches and scratches my &ss when I need it I will keep using it.

:hey:

animotion
01-29-2006, 02:19 AM
NewTek please close and delete this thread. :)

juice
01-29-2006, 06:14 AM
NewTek please close and delete this thread. :)


... next week Newtek promised the beta, so hopefully some guys here are wrong with the opinion about upgrating to lightwave9 and it will be funny to hear what they say than without opening a new threat...

nerdyguy227
01-29-2006, 08:36 AM
I still hold my grounds. We have been cheated by the last few versions of lightwave because they cant give us a thought digitizing helmet.

We simply can't use a program that has 2 parts to it. Dispite the fact it is more organised the way it is and frees up ram by closing one part so it may have a small rendering boost, I can not bare the extra 5 sec of waiting to make a plane in modeler then I have to save it then I have to open it. I am too stupid to not have ever seen the "Send object to layout" button and it probably doesnt work since there is a chance of it being a plug in (OOOOO.. scary!....)

We are obligated to team up and push newtek to include our ideas essential for its survivle in the world of extremely advanced 3d aplications

*sarcasm ends here*

I think what newtek is doing is incorperating primitives and some simple tools in another tab in layout so we can make the plane easy right there and if we need to make a more complex object, we can do that in modeler and save ram when it comes time to render and animate. I think that is just how it should be since I dont want layout to have 15 tabs and/or be an app where it is hard to find stuff.

Emmanuel
01-29-2006, 10:21 AM
Interestingly, this is the complete opposite of what NT says on the feature list.
There they say that we will be able to move objects to Layout much earlier in the development process and even add more details there.
I quote:
"The core workflow of modeling, rigging and animation has just undergone a radical new paradigm shift in LightWave. While users may wish to start the modeling process in Modeler, they can now move the process over to Layout very early, and continue refining the mesh, rigging the mesh, and adding and editing mesh weight and vertex maps directly from within Layout. Many modeling functions once limited to Modeler only are now available within Layout, saving many hours in the creation and animation process."

EmperorPete
01-29-2006, 10:28 AM
I still hold my grounds. We have been cheated by the last few versions of lightwave because they cant give us a thought digitizing helmet.
We simply can't use a program that has 2 parts to it. Dispite the fact it is more organised the way it is and frees up ram by closing one part so it may have a small rendering boost, I can not bare the extra 5 sec of waiting to make a plane in modeler then I have to save it then I have to open it. I am too stupid to not have ever seen the "Send object to layout" button and it probably doesnt work since there is a chance of it being a plug in (OOOOO.. scary!....)
We are obligated to team up and push newtek to include our ideas essential for its survivle in the world of extremely advanced 3d aplications
*sarcasm ends here*
I think what newtek is doing is incorperating primitives and some simple tools in another tab in layout so we can make the plane easy right there and if we need to make a more complex object, we can do that in modeler and save ram when it comes time to render and animate. I think that is just how it should be since I dont want layout to have 15 tabs and/or be an app where it is hard to find stuff.
Amen. One of the things I have always loved about LW is the 2 app setup. I detest building something in the same space as I'm supposed to be animating it. The Hub is a superb invention.
Incorporating basic modelling tools into Layout is a good move, however. I have no idea how many times I've needed to do a shot of a model on a flat plane, so being able to just make one on the spot would be handy.

archiea
01-29-2006, 11:36 AM
Hey, Ab, this kind of asinine behavior has been going on here for years. Which is why I rarely come here anymore.

I'm of the mind LW needs improvements. I think its price is great. I've already upgraded. However, I think James should be able to express himself here without the usual gang of LW defenders coming out with pitchforks, shouting him down.

THAT is amateurish.


Bravo, Dig, I aggree. while the original poster came off as glib initially, he did elaborate a bit. He has merit. Basically, anybody who doesn't blindly love LW in this forum is a troll, that is the general impression I get from this community. Meanwhile its the critics of LW that perhaps have invested the most in the app and have a clear opinion on it. And they are entitled to it. While elaborating on one's opnion may seem to help, when I have in the past, I just come against folks who are argumentative for the sake of it.

Folks here need to chill out and stop having all of their eggs in one basket. :goodluck:

archiea
01-29-2006, 11:40 AM
troll

v.,n. 1. [From the Usenet group alt.folklore.urban]
regularly posts specious arguments, flames or personal attacks to a
newsgroup, discussion list, or in email for no other purpose than to
annoy someone or disrupt a discussion. T


Problem is, apparently any criticism of LW appears to "annoy someone" and thus "disrupt a discussion" . Thats the problem here.

archiea
01-29-2006, 11:54 AM
You got the definition of a troll wrong. A troll is somebody who posts
jsut to get people riled up. So, to accuse anybody who criticizes LW
on a LW forum of b eing a troll could have you assuming facts not in
evidence. I don;t get the impression this guy just wants attention.
What;s the matter? Why can;t you stand it if anybody says anything
against LW? Differing opinions should be allowed.


Kohl, as you can see, the poster said that he's getting XSI and is leaving. I think thats what happenes in this forum. it has become such a birds of feather, that any criticism of LW gets the poster bullied and ridiculed... like this is some club. meanwhile, it should be a user community... with some who get enough miliage out the app and others who don't. instead it has become more of a fanbase forum. Many users see this and see the writing on the wall, and move on. it sticks of an inbred mentality.

perhaps folks here should get less defensive on folk's opinion on LW. If you really want to win them over, ask them, not ridicule, but ask them to elaborate. try to work them through their problem. is there a compromise? perhaps heir needs have outgrown LW and acknowledge that. instead is playground tactics.

I know for myself its become a turn off in this forum. Why? because I feel that you're not getting the discriminating user... just loyalist... it kinda reminds me of the old amiga days in the early nineties... when folks were moving off into Alphas running NT, or even macs, because it was the next evolution, and the Amiga users kept saying how much their system wwas better. maybe.. but not practical. that same blind loyalty appears here sometimes.

now there are many great users here, that make a living off of LW in some way, who are happy, or who perhaps are critical of LW, but who are all finding innovative ways to use LW and its limitations. this is not to discredit them. its just that there are some who desire something else... and when they are at the end of their rope, and posting here perhaps in haste... they are a troll, they say.

archiea
01-29-2006, 12:09 PM
There's no reason why James should not have been able to say his piece without being called a troll and having his opinions derided. None.

His opinions about the pricing are way off, but to trash him is really unnecessary.

I'm disappointed to see that after all these years, the same group of guys are STILL continuing to trounce others with whom they disagree. Whether it's about keeping Modeler and Layout separate, or changing the workflow at all, dissenting opinions just are not allowed here, are they? It's as if keeping LW the way it was in 1998 is so [email protected] important to you guys.

This thread is only as long as it is, and as negative as it is, because of a number of you guys who should know better. And, after biting my tongue for the past eight years, I just have to call you on it.


bravo, AGAIN!! Staright to the heart!!

Seriously, though, guys you realy should consider how this is viewed from the outside. I think operation put it best:

http://www.newtek.com/forums/showpost.php?p=333820&postcount=69

cresshead posted a well thought out and researched opinion on the matter.. very mature...

http://www.newtek.com/forums/showpost.php?p=333784&postcount=68

basically he disagrees with the original poster, but he's mature about it.

Why is that so hard for many here?

prospector
01-29-2006, 01:52 PM
Problem is, apparently any criticism of LW appears to "annoy someone" and thus "disrupt a discussion" . Thats the problem here.

Nooo........that's not the problem

there are plenty of threads that suggest things that Newtek should work on to help LW. there are some that I agree with and some I have started.
The problem is the attitude of the original post and subsequent posts.

The modeler should be included in the layout and the whole thing needs to be rewritten with workflow in mind. This is a must
This is a must? Has LW never worked before because of this? That's quite an opening gambit statement.


The product is unstable at times because of its plug-in nature.
If the product runs fine without those plug-ins, but crash with them, maby it's the plug-in writers that are at fault. You can request a better open archetecture for the plug-in writers....but to say LW is unstable because of plug-ins when LW runs great with what comes with it is off the mark.


retire Lightwave and come out with something new.
So LW is no longer a product worth having at all? It needs to be put out to pasture? there is no hope of ever creating a better product with what there is now?


Lightwave has separate modeling and animation... Everybody else does not..... It's not a feature it's retarded!

Lw is not everybody else, this does not make it retarded, it makes it stand out. While everyone drives an egg shaped car , LW lets us drive an all terrain vehicle, sure they may be a little faster,( I mean really, how many minutes do you save a week by hitting F-12 or not hitting F-12 if it was 1 app 5? 10?), but LW gets us there by going down unexplored roads where new things are discovered all the time. (I had to get a car analogy in someplace :tongue: )

I didn't say Lightwave was retarded but having two separate programs that should do same thing is dysfunctional!

But he did as seen in the quote just above.

And dysfunctional? Again, nothing has ever been done in LW because it's dysfunctional?

If you list every thing done by LW as compared to the supposedly better programs (movies, TV shows, TV commercials, local cable programming, local cable commercials, all that's done on the hunting and fishing shows, titling for Weddings, corparate in house video), I think you'll find that LW has MORE than held it's own, and thats not bad for such a supposidly dysfunctional and retarded program.

So it's not that LW was critiqued, it was that LW was....well so easily discarded when we know it's not that way at all.

connerh
01-29-2006, 02:19 PM
Honestly, even if you think LW 9 is going to bomb (which, possibly naively, I don't believe at all), you should upgrade. Why? Because you're getting $759 worth of software along with lightwave. So that means you're getting ~$1159 worth of software for ~$400. You're right, that's a **** deal. Not worth upgrading at all.

Honestly, you do realize WHY there is more than one pro level package out there, right? Each program has its appeals to certain people. Some people love 3d Studio Max, and find it very intuitave, whereas others find it a total pain to use. There are people on both sides of the fence for every program. Posting your opinions is just fine and dandy, but posting them as absolute statements of what NEEDS to be done... no. That's how piss people off.

cc3d
01-29-2006, 02:21 PM
My digital camera. I point it at what I want to render and BOOM! I get the render of it immediately


modeler is a little shaley though

hrgiger
01-29-2006, 02:53 PM
I'm disappointed to see that after all these years, the same group of guys are STILL continuing to trounce others with whom they disagree. Whether it's about keeping Modeler and Layout separate, or changing the workflow at all, dissenting opinions just are not allowed here, are they? It's as if keeping LW the way it was in 1998 is so [email protected] important to you guys.

This thread is only as long as it is, and as negative as it is, because of a number of you guys who should know better. And, after biting my tongue for the past eight years, I just have to call you on it.

The problem is, he started a thread right out of the gate with reasons why he was not going to upgrade, and yet backed those reasons up with 0 arguments.
Modeler and Layout shouldn't be seperate he said. Why? Because all the other apps do it different? So what? Does that make it wrong? That would be no.
The plug-in nature of Lightwave makes it unstable he said. How does he know that and how many examples did he show? Wasn't that 0 again? How do you know it's not something in the base code, or some inanae other detail that makes it unstable. Of course, the other problem is, he is saying that Lightwave is unstable, or more then other apps due to it's plug-in nature. I personally find Lightwave very stable, as do many others. Then you have someone else that says that it crashes 10 times a day for them. Is it because of plug-ins? If you're going to say it, back it up with a good theory or at least an amusing antidote.
Lightwave needs to be retired and they need to come up with something else he said. He's entitled to that opinion, but don't come on a forum dedicated to the software you are criticizing and not expect differening opinions and experiences. We all have things about Lightwave we would like to change, but I think it's a bit premature to call for the retirement of the program, especially on the cusp of a new release which is supposed to address a lot of the concerns he has listed such as stability, modeler/layout becoming closer to one app, and pretty much a complete rewrite of the software over the course of the last development cycle.

cc3d
01-29-2006, 03:09 PM
combine modeler and layout? This one I just don't want. I like to have modeler separate do that I can creat lots of 'trash' and stuff I don't want in layout.

The current work flow really works for me, so I'll say it so NewTek can hear that every now and then.

Crashes? Lightwave is not the only 3D app that crashes. They all crash and on all platforms (including the crash-proof Mac)


Gotta agree with everything hrgiger just said.


CC

loki74
01-29-2006, 03:22 PM
combine modeler and layout? This one I just don't want. I like to have modeler separate do that I can creat lots of 'trash' and stuff I don't want in layout.

agreed. At first I was skeptical about the 2-program workflow, but it has since grown on me, and I really appreciate it.


Crashes? Lightwave is not the only 3D app that crashes. They all crash and on all platforms (including the crash-proof Mac)

"crash-proof Mac" :rolleyes: Okay, the stability argument for the Mac (well, at least MY stability argument) doesnt have to do with software whose stability Apple has no way of controlling. It has to do with the stability of the OS. As far as the software Apple can control (namely, Apple software) I have yet to have any of those crash, either. (FCP, Motion, DVDSP, Soundtrack, Shake...)

I think Lightwave is quite stable. Majority of my "crashes" are when quitting modeler... this would be when I want it to quit anyway and I have already saved all my data... Not sure if its causing problems behind the scences, but I have yet to see this affect my work in any way.

I downloaded the Maya PLE and it crashes like eleventy-billion times more than Lightwave.

prospector
01-29-2006, 03:41 PM
eleventy-billion times

????
can you print that number out?? :D :D :D

james767
01-29-2006, 03:43 PM
Hi

Let me tell you my rationality behind the retarded statement. This is how everybody else in the world handls this problem, animation versus modeling. What you do in the "real world' is you create two windows. One window you select as having only your modeling tools and the other one you select seeing only your animation tools. Therefore your looking at the same scene and you don't have any problems with syncing. LW Forces You to Model in One Window and Animate in Another. This is a good idea only if you live in fairy land. Its 2006, the interface was revolutionary in the early 90s. Thay understand this problem and are fixing it hopefully in the future. Let's hope that they do.



combine modeler and layout? This one I just don't want. I like to have modeler separate do that I can creat lots of 'trash' and stuff I don't want in layout.

The current work flow really works for me, so I'll say it so NewTek can hear that every now and then.

Crashes? Lightwave is not the only 3D app that crashes. They all crash and on all platforms (including the crash-proof Mac)


Gotta agree with everything hrgiger just said.


CC

mattclary
01-29-2006, 04:00 PM
Hi

Let me tell you my rationality behind the retarded statement. This is how everybody else in the world handls this problem, animation versus modeling. What you do in the "real world' is you create two windows. One window you select as having only your modeling tools and the other one you select seeing only your animation tools. Therefore your looking at the same scene and you don't have any problems with syncing. LW Forces You to Model in One Window and Animate in Another. This is a good idea only if you live in fairy land. Its 2006, the interface was revolutionary in the early 90s. Thay understand this problem and are fixing it hopefully in the future. Let's hope that they do.

Based on this statement, you seem to have been modeling and animating a long time. Since you seem to think modeling and animating are best done together, I would ask what package you have been using? If that package meets your needs, why are you trolling here?

prospector
01-29-2006, 04:55 PM
What you do in the "real world' is you create two windows. One window you select as having only your modeling tools and the other one you select seeing only your animation tools.

OK I see your point there

Therefore your looking at the same scene and you don't have any problems with syncing. LW Forces You to Model in One Window and Animate in Another.

OK


But here's the flaw
you want 2 windows in a 1 app program. so both windows have to be open as you explain 1 with animating and 1 with modeling. so you can see the same scene that your modeling.
Well that's how it is now....
I have Layout open on 1 screen and modeler on the other, 2 windows and seeing the scene.

Now I DO have to hit F12 for an update but if I count all the time I hit F12 all day long it comes to the most 3 min out of 18 hours.

So even if they were 1 app you would STILL be forced to model in 1 window and animate in the other, just as it happens now.
So for a time savings of 3 min (for me) a single app is not worth giving up desk space to have 2 windows on the same screen. I could have modeler and Layout on the same screen but the working realestate of the windows would cause more agrivation that it's worth.

So if they fix the hub fully and everything done in Modeler is realtime updated in Layout, would it STILL be worth going to 1 app??
I think not.

The hub would be much easier to fix that a total tossing of LW and coming out with somewthing new.

Dodgy
01-29-2006, 05:08 PM
I'm a professional.
I use Lightwave.
I post here regularly.
I use other packages regularly, and find just as much at fault with them as I do with LW, but prefer how lightwave works.

Simple.

james767
01-29-2006, 05:28 PM
Hi prospector

Thanks for your comments. I do see your point on the price I think my real concern is that if the program is not updated with industry-standard features than the user community is going to get smaller and smaller. It is true it easier to update the hob and get it so it's functioning properly for time's sake. In the meantime which they're doing they can start adding modeler functionality to the layout with a customizable interface. Then the shortcomings of LW be less of the issue and the a advantages of LW can shine. :agree:


As to people's resistance toward this move the development team has already said that LW in the future will a choice on whether or not model separately our model together with animation. Another point people make is Modo and other modeling programs are standalone. But that's just it! they are just modeling programs and lightwave is a model animation package :argue:



What you do in the "real world' is you create two windows. One window you select as having only your modeling tools and the other one you select seeing only your animation tools.

OK I see your point there

Therefore your looking at the same scene and you don't have any problems with syncing. LW Forces You to Model in One Window and Animate in Another.

OK


But here's the flaw
you want 2 windows in a 1 app program. so both windows have to be open as you explain 1 with animating and 1 with modeling. so you can see the same scene that your modeling.
Well that's how it is now....
I have Layout open on 1 screen and modeler on the other, 2 windows and seeing the scene.

Now I DO have to hit F12 for an update but if I count all the time I hit F12 all day long it comes to the most 3 min out of 18 hours.

So even if they were 1 app you would STILL be forced to model in 1 window and animate in the other, just as it happens now.
So for a time savings of 3 min (for me) a single app is not worth giving up desk space to have 2 windows on the same screen. I could have modeler and Layout on the same screen but the working realestate of the windows would cause more agrivation that it's worth.

So if they fix the hub fully and everything done in Modeler is realtime updated in Layout, would it STILL be worth going to 1 app??
I think not.

The hub would be much easier to fix that a total tossing of LW and coming out with somewthing new.

juice
01-29-2006, 05:28 PM
... if you do animation with Lightwave, sometime it can be i´mportant moving some points or polygons during the animation, this is something dont working fine when some objects interact in Lightwave and you have do switch to modeler... maybe the modeler can be separate, but it is fine to have some tools there...

Gregg "T.Rex"
01-29-2006, 07:10 PM
Layout dosen't need Modeler inside. That would be a disaster.

Layout only needs vertex/edge/polygon selection/edit/keyframe capabilities for things like direct vertex animation, cluster deformations and camera matching/modeling projects. The same time, Modeler only needs a Lightwave's camera view port, where we can look though and model.

I can't count the times i needed to model something, looking through the camera that will render. Thankfully, with LW8 there are ways to do this; at least, for simple things like perspective model matching.

All of the above, CAN be achieved in LW as it is right now in version 8.5, but not as straight forward as in other software packages.

That's all there is about merging Layout and Modeler, if you ask me...

Can't wait to get my hands on LW9 and see what NT been doing all this time...

Peace...

Stooch
01-29-2006, 08:51 PM
First things Lightwave is way too expensive it should be priced at $499 and $99 for upgrades.

The modeler should be included in the layout and the whole thing needs to be rewritten with workflow in mind. This is a must and was done in the early days because the lack of computing power and the fact that Lightwave and modeler were developed as two separate programs by two separate authors. By the way the authors of these programs have moved on.

The product is unstable at times because of its plug-in nature.

Lightwave has had a long run and will go down in history. retire Lightwave and come out with something new. NewTek's other products are superb and they just need to move on.

thanks for that.... well, honestly i dont know what that was so i guess no thanks. i doubt you will be missed though.

however, lets have some cliff notes:

1) this program is dead useless and retarded.
2) charge 99 bucks for it or else i will take my hard earned 99 bucks and buy something else. How about jenga. its fast to learn, intiutive, comes all in one package, has hard body dynamics included and an incredibly rapid workflow.
3) i love this program and want it succeed, but seriously, do it by making 1/20th of the profit of the competition while making it better. pay the programmers with pats on the back.

see, you can try to defen that pov but personally i dont think newtek would miss a customer who is only willing to pay 99 bucks for a pro tool. i know powertools that cost more. thats right. i know them personally.

faulknermano
01-29-2006, 10:12 PM
i'm truly glad that i use both LW and Maya and dont have to choose one exclusively. it makes for so much more possibilities. i understand not everyone had this luxury (but i dont own themi just use them at work).


as for the age-old modeler-layout separation, i believe that modeler is not going to be discontinued. if i read it correctly, layout is being enhanced, which it should be, and modeler being developed in parallel. modeler's environment is different, more suited to complex modelling tasks.



Layout only needs vertex/edge/polygon selection/edit/keyframe capabilities for things like direct vertex animation, cluster deformations and camera matching/modeling projects.

a feature like animated booleans require a bit more than just component manipulation. however, i think the focus of Layout as an "animation tool" is correct and studied all the way. if certain "modelling tasks" can be animated, then thats a good direction to pursue another feature.

but i think the reason people still use dedicated modelers is because they they provide a secluded environment for one specific task. even if Layout sports ALL of Modeler's functions, it would still not be the same as Modeler because the environment is different. navigation, for example, is different. one is suited for one particular "mode". as a Maya user as well i find that though Maya has the tools for modelling, i prefer to use LW for the main model, and SOME (not all) of the the reasons are: opengl navigation behavior, intuitive drag tools, component selection style...

1. opengl navigation is a minor thing, since other progs like modo offers the ability to switch between different types. btw, i think Layout's navigation should be more like Maya. it is difficult to get around in LW compared to Maya (and i've been a LW user longer than i have been a Maya user).

2. click and drag tools are not something you find in Maya and, in my knowledge, not programmable through the standard MEL interface. again, my emphasis that a very well thought-out animation app like Maya suffers from a certain bias to certain things and is hard to program yourself out of.

3. selection style is probably the strongest argument. my current example, Maya, as alot of selection types. particles, fields, deformers, object, cameras, components (vertex, edge, face), etc etc. but in any modelling session, you use only two or three of these, which are vertices, edges, faces, or maybe the object as a whole. you might say "why not just customise your prog so that these selection types are arranged properly whenever you model?" that's what i do. and i also customised all relevant things regarding modelling, and i can just say it's a long process of streamlining something to suit for modelling.

what i'm just trying to say is that a very good animation package doesnt cover all the bases, and shouldnt be expected to. a pimped Layout will be welcomed. pimp it all the way. in the Modeler-Layout argument, literally, separate it from Modeler so it's not dependent on it. Layout should stand on its own, and Modeler should be a dedicated modeler enhancing LightWave, not replacing an important chunk of a the whole 3D workflow from the Layout application.

theo
01-30-2006, 10:21 AM
The same time, Modeler only needs a Lightwave's camera view port, where we can look though and model.

Couldn't agree more on the camera viewpoint within Modeler. This should have been a standard feature a long time ago frankly. There also needs to be a modeler camera button that synchonizes with the Layout scene camera. When clicked, it locks the modeler camera view to the parameters set by the chosen camera within Layout.

This would open up a lot of possibilities.

jeremyhardin
01-30-2006, 10:35 AM
Couldn't agree more on the camera viewpoint within Modeler. This should have been a standard feature a long time ago frankly. There also needs to be a modeler camera button that synchonizes with the Layout scene camera. When clicked, it locks the modeler camera view to the parameters set by the chosen camera within Layout.

This would open up a lot of possibilities.
agreed! great for front projection mapping modeling.

Emmanuel
01-30-2006, 11:12 AM
Sure, next thing You guys ask for is lights in modeler so that one can observe the topology of the models better and their flow...pffff....completely unrealistic feature ! :D

jeremyhardin
01-30-2006, 11:21 AM
Sure, next thing You guys ask for is lights in modeler so that one can observe the topology of the models better and their flow...pffff....completely unrealistic feature ! :D
hehe. ;) :thumbsup:

Stooch
01-30-2006, 11:38 AM
Sure, next thing You guys ask for is lights in modeler so that one can observe the topology of the models better and their flow...pffff....completely unrealistic feature ! :D

hey thats a reasonable request as long as you dont consider LW retarded and useless in the process.

Gregg "T.Rex"
01-30-2006, 11:45 AM
a feature like animated booleans require a bit more than just component manipulation...

Of course you 're absolutely right :agree: , but in my working experience on tv commercials and film fx work with LW, i never needed animated booleans for any project and if the need arise there are some plugins that may do the job, like:

1. Animated Boolean 2 (http://www.balo.com/downloads.shtml)
2. Object Sequence Saver (http://www.blochi.com/gfx/obj_seq_en.html)
3. Ray Goes Through Once 0.1 (http://f23.aaa.livedoor.jp/~fisjunk/plugin/plugin.php?id=39&p=1&c=3&t=%28ignore%29&v=7#f)
4. Save Transformed Objects 0.1 (http://f23.aaa.livedoor.jp/~fisjunk/plugin/plugin.php?id=55&p=1&c=3&t=%28ignore%29&v=7#f)
5. Shift Boolean Texture (http://64.85.4.146/GetDetail.cfm?ID=1809)

IMHO, animated booleans are a rare occasion, so i wouldn't care asking Newtek about them. But, i know that for other people this might not be the case and a lot of archvis guys, would like to have this option, native in Layout. So, i would NEVER say no to any new feature for LW. :thumbsup:

Regards,

mykyl
01-30-2006, 02:10 PM
I find it strange that folks would argue about separate modelling etc. I know plenty of folks who use Silo or Modo or whatever. They then export the model out and render it in the app of choice. I know when I get my copy of light wave I will do the same until I get used to Lightwaves modeller.

Its a pretty common thing to do.

Mike R

theo
01-30-2006, 02:19 PM
I find it strange that folks would argue about separate modelling etc. I know plenty of folks who use Silo or Modo or whatever. They then export the model out and render it in the app of choice. I know when I get my copy of light wave I will do the same until I get used to Lightwaves modeller.

Its a pretty common thing to do.

Mike R

:rolleyes:

Nemoid
01-30-2006, 02:24 PM
Well, BTW modelling and animating are part of a process. modelling comes first then comes rigging and animation.

the fact that Lw should be integrated, is also because of the more resources it uses.as two separated apps.
even more strategic would be a nodal inner structure.
Also, if tools were common between the modelling environment and the animation one every tool could worr better with every other, the platform and code would be one, so less problems to face in programming too.

I still think that , having modelling toolset and animation /rendering one in one package, and getting an uncluttered UI depends from how that UI is organized and can help the user keeping things logic for a good workflow.there are many methods to organize an Ui even if you have all the tools in one environment. apps like XSI and C4d clearly demonstrate good ways to do that.

its not that you always need animated booleans or modelling when animating. things like that can make workflow confusing, and aren't common in everyday work.
But a whole level of flexibility would suddenly appear once Modeler and layout will be merged together.

hrgiger
01-30-2006, 05:23 PM
:rolleyes:

:rolleyes:

theo
01-30-2006, 05:41 PM
:rolleyes:
:neener: :tsktsk:

loki74
01-30-2006, 07:06 PM
I find it strange that folks would argue about separate modelling etc. I know plenty of folks who use Silo or Modo or whatever. They then export the model out and render it in the app of choice. I know when I get my copy of light wave I will do the same until I get used to Lightwaves modeller.

Its a pretty common thing to do.

Mike R

This is true. In fact, if Modeler/Layout do come completely merged, I will probably buy Modo. I like having the separate apps.

hrgiger
01-30-2006, 08:02 PM
:neener: :tsktsk:

:i_agree: :screwy:

theo
01-30-2006, 08:14 PM
This is true. In fact, if Modeler/Layout do come completely merged, I will probably buy Modo. I like having the separate apps.

If in some strange alternate reality place Modeler and Layout do get released in a merged state and you happen to be in this alternate reality place at the same time what you may want to do FIRST is try LW merged BEFORE packing and moving to Modoville, the happy land of the giddy modoians.

In other words, how can you truly like ONLY having modeler and layout separated if you have never used them merged?

Kuzey
01-30-2006, 08:24 PM
I wouldn't be suprised if InSpire 3D comes out merged, just to be different from LW.

:jam:

Kuzey

Stooch
01-30-2006, 08:30 PM
This is true. In fact, if Modeler/Layout do come completely merged, I will probably buy Modo. I like having the separate apps.

you know, people have spent paragraphs outlining how easy it is to merge modeler and laout cores yet still maintain two separate windows with their separate tool layout, but some people just cant understand or dont want to understand. :thumbsdow :thumbsdow :thumbsdow

just think about it. when you open scene editor, what pops up? oh yeah, thats right, a new window. and guess what, you can move it around and it has its own tools and layout. see where im going ?

theo
01-30-2006, 08:39 PM
While we're at it why don't we just figure out a way to merge all humanity into one human...save us all a whole lot of trouble with these 3D conundrums and this would solve the world hunger issue at the same time...kill a couple of birds with one stone and all...

I think this should be an official LW term: those who want LW merged will now and forever be referred to as mergics. OK I think I am coming out here....I sense a confession...my god, I am a mergic....I have been completely and utterly mergified, hence my public mergification.

OH mergics, let us unite against the unmergified masses. Let us lift our mergenic banners high and claim our rightful mergitory. Let us cleanse the LW landscape of the unmergified...

Ok now where are those freaking pills....?

slow67
01-30-2006, 10:16 PM
mob mentality has taken over this thread, maybe James should start a new one.

theo
01-30-2006, 10:22 PM
mob mentality has taken over this thread, maybe James should start a new one.

Oooh yeah- another two star thread... :thumbsup:

Kuzey
01-30-2006, 10:36 PM
That happened in the first post, a few throw away lines will start this kinda thing.

Kuzey

loki74
01-30-2006, 10:47 PM
you know, people have spent paragraphs outlining how easy it is to merge modeler and laout cores yet still maintain two separate windows with their separate tool layout, but some people just cant understand or dont want to understand. :thumbsdow :thumbsdow :thumbsdow

just think about it. when you open scene editor, what pops up? oh yeah, thats right, a new window. and guess what, you can move it around and it has its own tools and layout. see where im going ?

lol. http://www.newtek.com/forums/images/smilies/brians/ohmy.gif

I go and say that I would be willing spend MY money to get a workflow that I would like, and thats offending you? Certainly my comment is not worthy of three thumbs down. What are you afraid of?

Even if it was to be one app just different windows, I would still want to have Modo. I like having two icons in my dock--one for each task. And maybe I just LIKE what Modo has to offer. (just dont have the money to burn on it)

Furthermore, if they are one app, one cannot crash without killing the other.

Fact is, there are advantages and disadvantages to either implementation. The one we have now just suits me better.

I'm sorry that my expression of my opinion on what would be better for my workflow seems to have offended you. Please accept my deepest apologies.

faulknermano
01-31-2006, 01:04 AM
Of course you 're absolutely right :agree: , but in my working experience on tv commercials and film fx work with LW, i never needed animated booleans for any project and if the need arise there are some plugins that may do the job, like:

thanks for the links! :thumbsup:


you're right. some features may not be widely used (who knows really?). however, my concern is flexibility and how a certain prog can be engineered to give an "almost" open-ended to solving CG technical problems. the key word is "engineering" a particular system that is stable, extensible, capable of many things associated with modelling tasks.

(i guess i'm just comparing LW with Maya instinctively. if Layout was like Maya, and by pressing F9 i'll be rendering using the LW renderer, that would be very much like 3D heaven to me.)

toby
01-31-2006, 01:10 AM
the fact that Lw should be integrated, is also because of the more resources it uses.as two separated apps.
Well it uses more resources than if you only need one of the two apps. I start up modeler about once every two weeks. I really don't want a giant app that takes all the resources of my system for tools I hardly use. Running 3DSMax at work makes it very hard to run all the apps I need, and extremely risky to start up a second copy if I need to look at another scene. My machine is crawling by the end of the day.



Also, if tools were common between the modelling environment and the animation one every tool could worr better with every other, the platform and code would be one, so less problems to face in programming too.

Once they've gotten dozens more plugins to work together, instead of imploding with conflicts.

All the other apps are merged, so how about leaving us one that's not :deal:

faulknermano
01-31-2006, 01:15 AM
All the other apps are merged, so how about leaving us one that's not :deal:

my position on this is that it's not about "merging" Layout and Modeler together so that one ceases to exist. i dont even think they can be really "merged" in a sense that their code would be extensively modified so they are packaged as one executable.

what NewTek seems to be doing is to add to Layout functionality that it did not have before. it is functionality that relates to modelling. if they adjust to core of the prog so that such functionality is useable in the real-world, who's to complain?

i think one *can* complain if they discontinue Modeler as a modelling app. but again, there's modo for some. i know *i* would be very disappointed if Modeler is discontinued, because, by itself (not in relation to Layout), it is a very excellent modelling program.

Nitisara
01-31-2006, 07:04 AM
First things Lightwave is way too expensive it should be priced at $499 and $99 for upgrades.

The modeler should be included in the layout and the whole thing needs to be rewritten with workflow in mind. This is a must and was done in the early days because the lack of computing power and the fact that Lightwave and modeler were developed as two separate programs by two separate authors. By the way the authors of these programs have moved on.

The product is unstable at times because of its plug-in nature.

Lightwave has had a long run and will go down in history. retire Lightwave and come out with something new. NewTek's other products are superb and they just need to move on.
I can agree that LW has a lot of disadvantages. Your list is too short even for outline. BUT there are two aspects which can change your viewpoint.

1) LW users create wonderful masterpieces even using existing versions of software. So it tells that everything is still in their hands.
2) Other 3D software is not better. If you will go deeper you will meet the same bugs, crashes, lack of proper tools, obsolete or unnecessary features and so on. There is no ideal 3D software so far.

There are special threads for bugs reports and feature requests. One who is interested in improving LW can apply his efforts there.

Nemoid
01-31-2006, 10:27 AM
Well it uses more resources than if you only need one of the two apps. I start up modeler about once every two weeks. I really don't want a giant app that takes all the resources of my system for tools I hardly use. Running 3DSMax at work makes it very hard to run all the apps I need, and extremely risky to start up a second copy if I need to look at another scene. My machine is crawling by the end of the day.


Once they've gotten dozens more plugins to work together, instead of imploding with conflicts.

All the other apps are merged, so how about leaving us one that's not :deal:

Well, of course . you can also use modeler and layout as separate apps, by just adding the -c string if i remember well. i have a Modeler- no hub and Lw -no hub in my desktop as well as a Lw using hub too.
you can follow a very linear process, and just model objects for your scenes, maybe create endomorphs and weights, and then move to layout and texture- rig them , animate and render. no one stops you from following a very linear workflow with Lw.

when it comes rigging, so far you have to do some back and forth, especially if you use skelegons, and weight maps for you rigs. now, fortunately, we have bone tools helping us in rigging tasks ( atool which i'd like to be enhanced BTW) and will have weight maps in layout too.


an integrated and modern envronment its not a all apps are like that request, at least from my POV. its a request about modernizing our app wich has a very cool workflow yet, but its limited everytime you need some sort of flexibility.


now i'll say a quite provocative thing:

When Modo will get animation, unless Lux make another app for animation (a choice that i believe Lux will never make- seeing Modo 201 showed fetures) you will understand all the power and workflow easiness that would come from an integrated app using Lw philosophy and beyond. and more of that, you 'll understand that with a good UI its possible with no problem at all.

Stooch
01-31-2006, 10:29 AM
lol. http://www.newtek.com/forums/images/smilies/brians/ohmy.gif

I go and say that I would be willing spend MY money to get a workflow that I would like, and thats offending you? Certainly my comment is not worthy of three thumbs down. What are you afraid of?

Even if it was to be one app just different windows, I would still want to have Modo. I like having two icons in my dock--one for each task. And maybe I just LIKE what Modo has to offer. (just dont have the money to burn on it)

Furthermore, if they are one app, one cannot crash without killing the other.

Fact is, there are advantages and disadvantages to either implementation. The one we have now just suits me better.

I'm sorry that my expression of my opinion on what would be better for my workflow seems to have offended you. Please accept my deepest apologies.

i could argue your points but anyone who uses bold style text formatting MUST be right... :rolleyes: . btw you can still run both layout and modeler as two programs, but share the modeling core and vice versa.

also im not afraid of anything, it seems that you are afraid of a combined LW with your arguements, i am on the other hand not afraid of running LW separatelly because im using it right now and i dont like it.

so in your oppinion its better to separate the apps so that one crashing app wont take the other one. I think thats a half assed solution. ( shall i emphasize the words "I think" by making them bold? ) in fact, the ideal way to deal with crashes is to prevent them in general. and FYI my crashes are caused by the hub so they are a direct result of your beloved separation. also, just like you, I gave you my oppinion, there was no offense taken. but its your fault for assuming wrong. oh and :thumbsdow :thumbsdow :thumbsdow

Gregg "T.Rex"
01-31-2006, 10:48 AM
Well, of course . you can also use modeler and layout as separate apps, by just adding the -c string if i remember well...

That would be the -0...

Cheers,

ibanezhead
01-31-2006, 01:42 PM
Having two seperate apps is not the problem. I generally model in Maya and render in another package (MAX, LW). I have no issue with that seperation. The problem is that many functionalities are split between Modeler and Layout, like rigging and surfacing. You can do all of your surfacing in Modeler, but it is pointless if you are needing to make test renders. So you end up laying out uvs and such in Modeler and then eventually switching to Layout to test. No big deal, but it is an uneeded seperation in the worklfow. You should be able to complete a task without having to use both apps, IMO. So either put a renderer in Modeler (heh), or allow us to layout uvs and such in Layout. Or combine the two and have one app.

It is kinda embarrasing how some people treat each other on these forums. This guy is entitled to his opinion without getting made out as an evil troll. It's just his opinion. If you don't like it, say so without getting personal. Nobody but Newtek owns LW. The rest of us are just users but we all have a stake in it's future. If someone has paid for the product then they have a right to put their 2cents in on which direction they think Newtek should take it...

Big Jay
01-31-2006, 02:15 PM
I thought LW 9 integrates modeler tools in layout? So everyone gets what they wanted. Modeler and layout united AND a seperate modeler for us traditionalists.

Just to be completely different I would not mind having a modeler window, layout window and UV/Surface window to work in. I like having all my tools together.

anyway good luck with your app. Newtek has brought in some great talent so I'll stick through the rough spot out and see what this new team can do.

loki74
01-31-2006, 05:34 PM
i could argue your points but anyone who uses bold style text formatting MUST be right...

don't put words in my mouth. Bold face is for emphasis.


btw you can still run both layout and modeler as two programs, but share the modeling core and vice versa.

no problem. Isnt that what they are doing? I remember reading something along the lines of "extracting the core from modeler, putting it in a DLL and making that accessable to both apps," or something to that effect.


in fact, the ideal way to deal with crashes is to prevent them in general. and FYI my crashes are caused by the hub so they are a direct result of your beloved separation.

your crashes not mine. Hence, you prefer one app, I prefer two.

...crashes cannot be completely prevented in general. So to me its best to minimize the effect of the crashes that do happen.


also, just like you, I gave you my oppinion, there was no offense taken. but its your fault for assuming wrong.


some people just cant understand or dont want to understand.

right. Understand... that it merging should be done just because its possible? It's your fault for not being clear, assuming that indeed the above quote of yours is an expression of opinion.


:thumbsdow :thumbsdow :thumbsdow
right back at you buddy.

cresshead
01-31-2006, 07:02 PM
i think all owners of 3d app have concerns...

lw 9...what will be in it?...hwre's it going!..re lw10 etc.......

cinema4d...
will it ever get to be a 'known app' outside of germany and gain a substantial foothold in any single area such as tv, film, games architectual etc?
will cinema ever get a decent character animation module!

3dsmax..when is there going to be a re write?...and where's the future lay now that maya is next to at at autodesk?

maya...geez!...it's owned by autodesk now...what's going to happen!!!...

xsi...will xsi ever regain the ground it lost when maya took the crown of film fx during the development of xsi...will xsi get into colleges like that of max and maya...going to be a uphill struggle...

modo...just what are they doing ?....do they have a market when silo and hexagon is so much cheaper.

z brush...will it ever get a decent U.I for those 3d users coming from maya, lw max etc.

electric image..who uses it nowdays?

poser....where next?

bryce...where next?

vue....is the world enough?


:cat:

Stooch
01-31-2006, 07:43 PM
hahah loki = :cry:

because i :thumbsdow at him.

oh well, doesnt bother me any.

you argue with me as if you tried using a modeler combined with layout. Im open minded enough to experience something new, while you are scared of change. In fact if you think about it, its really not new. Every program since LW found it easier to use a combined interface. they manage to mitigate bugs, why cant lw? the creators of LW moved on to create modo, why didnt they make it a split app? because there is no benefit to it. yes you can separate tools and workflow while combining the core of the program. And i feel that this is the plan and thats where NT is going. and you can cry about it but face it. you will accept it and use it, or you can move on and wont really be missed (atleast not by me lol).

I know split LW doesnt benefit me from experience, can you say otherwise? I would find that hard to believe since there never was a combined LW, so why are you so adamantly against it then? you really think they were split to mitigate bugs??? do you know the history of LW? right now you are just arguing to argue. havent really brought up any new or useful points to further your conviction though. hence you arent worth any more of my time - since this seems to be more about your interpretation of my :thumbsdow then anything worth arguing about.

you dont want me to put words in your mouth yet you assume im angry with you because of :thumbsdow :thumbsdow :thumbsdow ???I wasnt angry at all, just laughing at you. you have a problem with that opinion obviously but feel entitled to yours???

btw :thumbsdow :thumbsdow :thumbsdow

loki74
01-31-2006, 11:30 PM
hahah loki = :cry:

because i :thumbsdow at him.

uhh... no.


Im open minded enough to experience something new, while you are scared of change.

No sir, in fact when I bought Lightwave, I was quite skeptical of having two apps for the different tasks. All my previous 3D experience had been in single-app workflows, and I didnt see why 2 apps were necessary. But I like the system the way it is. That is not fear of change. And besides.. like I said, if they make it one app I could just go and save up for Modo, no big deal. Really, I have nothing at all to be afraid of. You were the one with the overstated, completely irrelevant reaction to my initial post (ie the post that started this argument)


there is no benefit to it. yes you can separate tools and workflow while combining the core of the program. And i feel that this is the plan and thats where NT is going. and you can cry about it but face it. you will accept it and use it, or you can move on and wont really be missed (atleast not by me lol).

anything about leaving? And whats up with this "loki's crying" stuff? Take a look over my statements. Unlike you, I have kept my composure and have not resorted to childish immature remarks, or excessive use of smilies. Ironically, you were the one who overreacted to my statement that I like two apps. Why is the fact that I like them separate such a problem to you?

furthermore, haven't I made it clear that (from what I understand of it) I like where NT is headed? Not to mention, I dropped $800 on LW/Vue no more than a few months ago. No WAY im gonna bin it unless I have a really [email protected] good reason... which combining the workflow does not fall into the category of.


I know split LW doesnt benefit me from experience, can you say otherwise? I would find that hard to believe since there never was a combined LW, so why are you so adamantly against it then? you really think they were split to mitigate bugs??? do you know the history of LW? right now you are just arguing to argue. havent really brought up any new or useful points to further your conviction though. hence you arent worth any more of my time - since this seems to be more about your interpretation of my then anything worth arguing about.

LW is not the only app I have used. Like I said, at first I really didnt like the idea of having a split workflow. But now I like it. And even if that point were valid, it is logically reciprocal--you could no more say that one LW would be better than I could say its better splite because there never has been one LW for us to compare it it. Yes, I do know the history of LW (although vaguely). No, I am not just arguing for the sake of arguing. In all my replies, I've rebutted the things you have said. However, your most recent reply does not address anything I said in my last post, and in fact addresses points I never made and things I never said. If anyone is arguing for argument's sake, it is you.

Why do I need "points to furhter my conviction?" Like I said, I like 2 apps you like 1. We each have our reasons and its okay if we disagree. Why is it so important that you convince me? Or do you seriously think that either of us will convince anyone else who happens to be reading this to follow our respective pursuasions? I doubt it.


you dont want me to put words in your mouth yet you assume im angry with you because of :thumbsdow :thumbsdow :thumbsdow ???I wasnt angry at all, just laughing at you. you have a problem with that opinion obviously but feel entitled to yours???

read your initial reaction to what I said in the first place. That was not a statement of opinion or expression of amusement. (Well, at any rate, that's NOT how I read it...) That was 1) a statement of fact and 2) an insult at my ability to understand and/or read facts.

If you were paying attention you my last post, you would have read this:

Hence, you prefer one app, I prefer two.
Now tell me, is that non-acceptance of your opinion?

In fact I have agreed with you!! observe:


btw you can still run both layout and modeler as two programs, but share the modeling core and vice versa.
no problem.

look... I've said it before and I'll say it again: we each have our own preferences and we each have our reasons for those preferences. I'm not trying to convince you, I'm just stating my opinion. (and trying to clarify where I stand... doesnt look like ive made that quite clear to you). I think it should be simple as that.

Nemoid
02-01-2006, 03:06 AM
Having two seperate apps is not the problem. I generally model in Maya and render in another package (MAX, LW). I have no issue with that seperation. The problem is that many functionalities are split between Modeler and Layout, like rigging and surfacing. You can do all of your surfacing in Modeler, but it is pointless if you are needing to make test renders. So you end up laying out uvs and such in Modeler and then eventually switching to Layout to test. No big deal, but it is an uneeded seperation in the worklfow. You should be able to complete a task without having to use both apps, IMO. So either put a renderer in Modeler (heh), or allow us to layout uvs and such in Layout. Or combine the two and have one app.

yeah this is the main point.

BTW so you end asking for rendering in modeler, or modelling and UV tools in Layout.
that would be a normal option into an integrated environment without having double tools
how can a user not see that such request could cause double things, like happened for skelegons. what skelegons are ? they're a half working solution and a double : bones would be the right too, and they're in layout. this is the reason of bone tools. look how they were third party tools rather than being developed within the app.
now look how maya handles bones and no other extra tool. bones , lattices , defomers, weight maps are the tools for rigging. the logic ones.

fortunately situation is different :) :
now, we have rendering into a separate area = good, because both packages access at this common area.
mesh edit in a separate area into a good percentage = good as well.

I'm happy that the new team reached doing such things.

to add even more, we have a quite cool modelling, texturing, lighting and surfacing workflow. that's the goodness of Lw that, into an integrated environment should not be forgetted as well.

keep the good things, get rid of the crap ones would be a ood motto.

but we've no full integration nor modern base structure, nor opened SDK yet.
that's where Lw developing should be headed in 9.x cycle.

@Greg : thanx for remembering me the right -0 thingy it is very usefull sometimes getting rid of the hub.

Gregg "T.Rex"
02-01-2006, 04:27 AM
In another parallel world to ours, Newtek should take all the good things from Layout, all the good things from Modeler and build up a new 3D application called ... Lightwave, which would combine both Layout and Modeler, but only the best options and with no double tools.

In our current world, trying to do a complete merge of Layout and Modeler into one package, will only lead to more hassle and probably more problems, as they were never designed for that in mind.

Now, both Layout and Modeler, compliment each other in most cases, but there still are some areas that cause problems in a pipeline, like rigging and rendering during modeling process. Those things should be addressed first.

I don't have high expectations from Newtek to do miracles for Lightwave's future, but i love Lightwave -i'm using it for more than 12 years - and i would hate to see it going down from wrong management decisions. And dropping an already low price in half can't help core development, imho. Maybe, 3rd party plugin acquisitions the most and some late fixes, like n-gons and edges...

Three years ago, Lightwave was the main 3d app for my business; now this have changed and Maya is in par with LW usage and also, i keep an eye on Modo, as those guys are the fathers of LW and seem they're building a new 3d app, simillar to LW's philosophy but with a modern core...

Now, even if Newtek drops LW's development, i know i would still going to use it for a couple of years or more. After all, you can't teach an old dog new tricks, right? Things will be clearer by the end of 2006, i guess...

Less than my 2 cents...

Nitisara
02-01-2006, 05:02 AM
In another parallel world to ours, Newtek should take all the good things from Layout, all the good things from Modeler and build up a new 3D application called ... Lightwave, which would combine both Layout and Modeler, but only the best options and with no double tools.
Very good opinion to my mind. I would suggest :newtek: to finish v9, and to start develop new core with modern technologies in the basis. Even if all current 3rdparty plugins will not survive, it will worth it.
As you say for 2 years more LW sailboat will be afloat anyway, and after that suddenly new submarine could rise from the deep of :newtek: , taking all old users aboard :D

Chuck
02-01-2006, 06:09 AM
Very good opinion to my mind. I would suggest :newtek: to finish v9, and to start develop new core with modern technologies in the basis. Even if all current 3rdparty plugins will not survive, it will worth it.
As you say for 2 years more LW sailboat will be afloat anyway, and after that suddenly new submarine could rise from the deep of :newtek: , taking all old users aboard :D

Gregg's post and your own express a point of view that indicates a misunderstanding with regard to what is happening in LightWave development. We've stated publicly that the development team is replacing the core with a modern core using the parallel changeover development model. We've described several elements of the process that have been underway, such as extracting the renderer to a separate module in the 8.x cycle, and the renderer has been restructured and the raytracer core rewritten for v9.

The effort for v9 is not to merge Layout and Modeler. In both applications, the core is being rewritten, and the meshediting functions have been extracted to a common location that can be used by both applications, and that core is also being rewritten. This will be an ongoing task for the 9.x cycle, with some amount of functionality in Layout for affecting meshes in 9.0, and more added in each update as the series progresses.

randysolo
02-01-2006, 06:12 AM
$499?!! Hey I just bought LW for that price as part of a companion upgrade. I've been using it at work for 3 or 4 years but now I'm getting it for myself! I don't think we can demand an "end-all-upgrade", we haven't finished making the payments yet!! I figure it'll take another 10 years before that happens. When we finish deciding what it is WE want, then NewTek can get to work on it. I'm guessing what we really want is TIME and KNOWLEDGE. In that case we need more forums and websites dedicated to LW tuts and galleries. The more we share the knowledge the less time it will take us noobs to figure it all out, increasing sales of LW and speeding the advancement of the LW app. I have several other incomplete 3D applications but LW has been the answer to most of my 3D woes. I don't know Maya, Max or any other Big-3D apps so I can't really complain about something I'm missing. I can only be grateful for what I have and today is the day I get my package!!!! Ah-hm....carry on....

Nitisara
02-01-2006, 06:33 AM
Gregg's post and your own express a point of view that indicates a misunderstanding with regard to what is happening in LightWave development. We've stated publicly that the development team is replacing the core with a modern core using the parallel changeover development model.
Thanks for your reply, Chuck. I am very satisfied to hear that.

colkai
02-01-2006, 06:56 AM
I'm guessing what we really want is TIME and KNOWLEDGE. In that case we need more forums and websites dedicated to LW tuts and galleries. The more we share the knowledge the less time it will take us noobs to figure it all out, increasing sales of LW and speeding the advancement of the LW app.
...
I can only be grateful for what I have and today is the day I get my package!!!! Ah-hm....carry on....
Well said!
People often talk about what is missing from LW but forget how often the "whoa, I didn't know you could do that" phrase pops up.
Time and knowledge indeed, and I'm sadly lacking in both. :p

DiedonD
02-01-2006, 07:28 AM
Was actually cheaper than that,
considering $579 Vue + $199 LWCAD and $0.00 upgrade to [9]

Really a smokin' deal

I just received LW 8.5. Does the above quatation mean that I can go for LW9 upgrade for free!!?? :D via online?

Nemoid
02-01-2006, 07:32 AM
Gregg's post and your own express a point of view that indicates a misunderstanding with regard to what is happening in LightWave development. We've stated publicly that the development team is replacing the core with a modern core using the parallel changeover development model. We've described several elements of the process that have been underway, such as extracting the renderer to a separate module in the 8.x cycle, and the renderer has been restructured and the raytracer core rewritten for v9.

The effort for v9 is not to merge Layout and Modeler. In both applications, the core is being rewritten, and the meshediting functions have been extracted to a common location that can be used by both applications, and that core is also being rewritten. This will be an ongoing task for the 9.x cycle, with some amount of functionality in Layout for affecting meshes in 9.0, and more added in each update as the series progresses.

Yap this is what we knew already about Lw development, after reading your explainations.

What isn't so clear IMHO, is if at the end of the process of 9.x cycle, Modeler and Layout will be merged, or will work similarly to separate modules based on a modern platform as well and addressing the same common rewritten areas (mesh edit, rendering and more).This solution could be good as well !
could you elaborate a little bit ?

also, I'd have another question : we do know Nt hired people to work on Lscript. will that be enhanced for 9.0 ?

Thanx in advance.

Dodgy
02-01-2006, 08:11 AM
What isn't so clear IMHO, is if at the end of the process of 9.x cycle, Modeler and Layout will be merged, or will work similarly to separate modules based on a modern platform as well and addressing the same common rewritten areas (mesh edit, rendering and more).This solution could be good as well !

That's what it says. Modelling tools are now a separate dll, which enables Layout to call them, or modeller. This will mean you can pretty much do anything in layout (though that obviously depends on how much the team have managed to get working by release, but eventually all), though Modeller will still be developed because it's a good environment in which to work.

bluerider
02-01-2006, 08:21 AM
First things Lightwave is way too expensive it should be priced at $499 and $99 for upgrades.

bluerider=Way to expensive in regard to what :stumped: ?

The modeller should be included in the layout and the whole thing needs to be rewritten with workflow in mind. This is a must and was done in the early days because the lack of computing power and the fact that Lightwave and modeller were developed as two separate programs by two separate authors.

bluerider=Having separate compartments is not necessarily a bad thing. For example, someone who is primarily hired as a Modeller doesn't need to worry about all the other menus dumping on his "desktop". For example, if he’s modelling what can be better for a modeller that only having menus stacked with "modelling" and not "animation" tools? From that point of view surely from that perspective, that should be at least a factor in improving workflow :thumbsup: .

By the way the authors of these programs have moved on.

bluerider=Its odd, but I kinda noticed that Lightwaves coding and tools taking a "even bigger" leaps in the right direction recently?

The product is unstable at times because of its plug-in nature.

bluerider=Its plug-in nature....could you describe in what way. One thing that is noticeable is that lightWave loads up much faster than its competitors because every time you launch Lightwave it doesn't DUMP 99% of Plugins you probably are not going to use.

Lightwave has had a long run and will go down in history. retire Lightwave and come out with something new. NewTek's other products are superb and they just need to move on.

bluerider=So I am stuck with thinking like an engineer with a CAD based approach with those other products :oye: .

Great for someone who thinks that way. I have instructed with a competing product for two years, I switched to LightWave a number of years ago. I found the main difference was I was able to get students up to the level of output in quarter of the time.

I think in terms of being workflow is very efficient. The other interesting thing is in terms of stability, I just finished a job yesterday involving character animation. Two weeks ago my Workstation had rather an unfortunate accident....er, I dropped it in transit, DUH :compbeati .

I had to use a four year old PC that had 750 mbs of RAM 2 GHZ processing speed and a 64 bit graphics card. I was able to finish the project with this old system. I have been working recently with a chap who uses MAX. If I had loaded on my PC, I know for a fact that if it had, serious "computing interggestion".

My freelance job would have been unworkable, unless I got a bank loan and bought a high end system :grumpy: .

Gregg "T.Rex"
02-01-2006, 08:37 AM
Gregg's post and your own express a point of view that indicates a misunderstanding with regard to what is happening in LightWave development. We've stated publicly that the development team is replacing the core with a modern core using the parallel changeover development model. We've described several elements of the process that have been underway, such as extracting the renderer to a separate module in the 8.x cycle, and the renderer has been restructured and the raytracer core rewritten for v9.

The effort for v9 is not to merge Layout and Modeler. In both applications, the core is being rewritten, and the meshediting functions have been extracted to a common location that can be used by both applications, and that core is also being rewritten. This will be an ongoing task for the 9.x cycle, with some amount of functionality in Layout for affecting meshes in 9.0, and more added in each update as the series progresses.

You know, Chuck...
I've read the official statement (http://www.newtek.com/lightwave/lwfuturedev.php) about 8.x, 9.x and beyond cycle development for LW and i can't hide the fact that it put a big happiness smile on my face. I've been using LW since version 4.0, i'm very proficient and have made lots of money with; and still do. For these reasons, i really hope Newtek can live up to my -and others- expectations.

The fact that Newtek droped LW's price in half, in my experience could mean a couple of things:


#1. Less people to work on the new cycle developments bring longer times to deliver a more robust and up-to-date Lightwave. This makes more sense; at lest to me...

#2. More people to work on the new cycle developments, because with half the price more can afford to buy LW now. Not likely, but can't exclude this option also...

#3. Newtek will draw funds from its other products to farther develop Lightwave, while attracting more customers. People have said this in the past, but we can't know for sure, if this is the case...

#4. Newtek will count half of LW's future on third party developers, like Steve Worley or others. From time to time, all 3D apps out there do the same thing and it's proven to be reliable and worthy. But, Newtek should also continue farther development...

#5. None of the above; Newtek will battle over time to make LW as competitive as Maya or XSI. Dropping the price in half, doesn’t affect LW's dev team. Now, this is what i hope for...

Of course, for all the above options, i could be 100% wrong, as they are only speculations. But, you see, the main issue here is that, while the list of LW 9.x features is okay and most welcome, still LW won't be ahead of the pack and won't have all the bells and whistles other 3D apps have today. And if these "missing and wanted today" features are introduced in the 10.x development cycle that would mean we have to wait another year and a half the least, for those and that is not a good thing...

You know, in 2001 i talked with ***** -a programmer to a software competitor to LW- and among other things I asked him about development of sub-pixel displacement feature for the -unknown back then- application they were working. He told me that they had this feature already and they were working on fluid and volumetric things. That was 2001! In 2006 LW come with a half-real sub-pixel solution; according to what people that have tested it say and post in various forums. Back then, we had this project that needed this feature and in the end we turned to Maya to render and deliver it…

Don't get me wrong. I don't mind using any app out there that can help me do the job better and faster. But, i've been using LW for more than a decade, i love it and it breaks my heart every time i have to resort to another 3d app for a solution.

Last week, i had this project that required heavy use of particles and fluids. And when i say heavy, i mean emitters with a million particles each and Real Flow's fluid mesh sequences with each mesh having 2.5 million polygons. Limitations in LW’s SDK prevent Fprime to render properly the mesh sequence and LW proved that can't handle such large datasets. Maybe, most people won't ever work on such large projects but since i did, i would really like LW to be able to handle faster and more robust these datasets. To be honest here, i don't say that other apps managed to do any better than LW, but i mention this, because better and faster handling of large datasets, should be on the number one list for the imminent LW's feature...

Chuck, i really hope Newtek will manage to bring back LW the glory it deserve. I wish you and the dev team all the best for this hard task you have on your hands...

I will stop here and wait to test LW 9 for myself and take it from there...

Best regards,

Malorie
02-01-2006, 09:17 AM
I just had to add this.

"4. Lightwave is way behind the other programs in speed of workflow particularly because it uses the cave man devices I think they called a "mouse and keyboard". Newtek is at a point where to keep ahead of the rest of the competition they MUST include a free mind-reading helmet with every version of Lightwave. This helmet can detect brain-waves and create he object as you think it."

I've been working hard on this and I think I have it perfected.

I'll sell the invention to NT if they are interested in bringing this old program into the modern age. ;)

Panikos
02-01-2006, 09:26 AM
Gregg has several valid points.
When a client comes and needs Caustics, my thoughts are directed to other solutions than LW. What a pitty !
FPrime saved me (and so many people) from tight deadlines, due to its rendering speed. We read that Newtek is thrilled by FPrime and is interested to converge the SDK so other rendering engines can work in parallel with LW, together with Network rendering.
Its been some time, still no major changes in SDK.
Its frustrating to combine 3-4 apps and workarounds every time, cause none is providing if not everything, at least the majority. I am used to workarounds, but often there are deadends.
Brave steps are essential including the associated risks.
Every day that passes without a solid clue of what is going on, is painful.
I am not claiming that LW9 will do miraculous things, its beta anyway, but obviously its a sign indicating where we are going, better than being blind or misoriented. Now everything is foggy and blurred.
Hopes and promises reached a point that generate disapointment.

Nemoid
02-01-2006, 10:08 AM
That's what it says. Modelling tools are now a separate dll, which enables Layout to call them, or modeller. This will mean you can pretty much do anything in layout (though that obviously depends on how much the team have managed to get working by release, but eventually all), though Modeller will still be developed because it's a good environment in which to work.

uhm... it seems to me that means incomplete support of modelling tools from layout, because modeler will exist yet. in this case that means that we'll use layout "modelling" tools for correct deformations of meshes and so on. maybe little things and not much other. totally modelling in layout would be nonsense for sure.

i like modeler, but i'd like to have a completed integrated environment, where i could push a button or choose a menu voice, and suddenly see modeler appear. have a flexible environment where i could make appear the timeline when i need it and so with other things. for example i could want to see how the model would look when rendered, or use lights while modelling to see beter how the surface behaves in relation to polygon topology.

other example : in an app like Maya i could model, and forget of timeline and other things, so it becomes a modelling environment yet its all part of the same scene. so when i need animation, i simply swich to it, maybe even using a customized layout, good for animation.

IMO, such a workflow,(or better, organization of the app) relies entirely in the UI, not in the app, which would be one however. how the tools would be showcased and organized in different compartments/layouts could appear different, but all tools would be common actually.

what's cool of modeller compared to several apps out there , especially Maya is the selection system, items management, simmetry, and base tools and falloffs for modify tools, immediate switch to subpatches and direct modelling in subpatch mode this makes its workflow very fast.

But many tools could be reunited in single tools with good options, keyable options so that you'll have uncluttered UI and possibility to have what you need just pressing shortcuts.

Modeler is a very good environment, but in my mind nothing stops it from being part of the same app.

Stooch
02-01-2006, 12:04 PM
yep i agree with this view having used pretty much all major packages and knowing full well how much of an improvement this direction could bring. not only that but how many more artists would jump onto LW who find the split awkward.

the only reason I find the split personality workable is because i learned this way. doesnt make it the best way to work in 3D or any more efficient then all the other packages that use a single integrated app. I still would like to see 2 separate windows, however the hub should be rehauled and become the foundation of the program rather then a rickety old bridge.

toby
02-01-2006, 11:03 PM
when it comes rigging, so far you have to do some back and forth, especially if you use skelegons, and weight maps for you rigs. now, fortunately, we have bone tools helping us in rigging tasks ( atool which i'd like to be enhanced BTW) and will have weight maps in layout too.

I agree, there are some things from modeler that are needed in layout, and I think we're getting those in [9]



an integrated and modern envronment its not a all apps are like that request, at least from my POV. its a request about modernizing our app wich has a very cool workflow yet, but its limited everytime you need some sort of flexibility.

I did not mean to imply that you were saying 'merge layout because everyone else has it'. Sorry if that's what it sounded like.



When Modo will get animation, unless Lux make another app for animation (a choice that i believe Lux will never make- seeing Modo 201 showed fetures) you will understand all the power and workflow easiness that would come from an integrated app using Lw philosophy and beyond. and more of that, you 'll understand that with a good UI its possible with no problem at all.
I fully understand the benefits of having a merged app, I take advantage of them whenever I work in one, but I also know that for me, it's not worth the drawbacks.

I think of it just like a real movie set. Your model shop is in a different room than your stage. Of course you can and do make adjustments to your set when it's on the stage, but that's not where the creation gets done.

So I think adding a few of modeler's functions to layout is a great solution.

Dodgy
02-02-2006, 03:22 AM
uhm... it seems to me that means incomplete support of modelling tools from layout, because modeler will exist yet. in this case that means that we'll use layout "modelling" tools for correct deformations of meshes and so on. maybe little things and not much other. totally modelling in layout would be nonsense for sure.

I agree it probably won't have all the tools of modeler working in layout straight off the bat, but that doesn't mean they can't.


i like modeler, but i'd like to have a completed integrated environment, where i could push a button or choose a menu voice, and suddenly see modeler appear. have a flexible environment where i could make appear the timeline when i need it and so with other things. for example i could want to see how the model would look when rendered, or use lights while modelling to see beter how the surface behaves in relation to polygon topology.

Sounds like you'll be able to do that with 9.


other example : in an app like Maya i could model, and forget of timeline and other things, so it becomes a modelling environment yet its all part of the same scene. so when i need animation, i simply swich to it, maybe even using a customized layout, good for animation.

So how is that different from switching from modeler to layout? :) I do agree, but if you've tried maya, you know how difficult it can be isolating something you're working on. NT need to concetrate on making this switch as painless as possible.


IMO, such a workflow,(or better, organization of the app) relies entirely in the UI, not in the app, which would be one however. how the tools would be showcased and organized in different compartments/layouts could appear different, but all tools would be common actually.

Again, that's what's got to happen with 9. They said they're going to consolidate the tool set, so we have less tools, but more powerful ones. These tools will work in both modeler and layout.


Modeler is a very good environment, but in my mind nothing stops it from being part of the same app.

Well obviously NT think so too, otherwise they wouldn't be doing this :)

faulknermano
02-02-2006, 03:57 AM
other example : in an app like Maya i could model, and forget of timeline and other things,


precisely: you can forget alot of things and end up troubleshooting alot of things because you did not notice a particular grouping, or a node that isnt supposed to be there but so deeply imbedded in the network that it's just a living **** to repair. when i talk about "clutter", friends, it's not just about interface. i can easily spend half a day in the hypergraph / hypershade, figuring out and troubleshooting a network-gone-wrong because someone forgot to remove and do something along the way.

edit: and that "someone" could be me. LOL!

tischbein3
02-02-2006, 05:50 AM
I'm a professional.
I use Lightwave.
I post here regularly.
I use other packages regularly, and find just as much at fault with them as I do with LW, but prefer how lightwave works.

Simple.

...and surely I'm not the only one who wouldn't expect that you would post such a simplified "you are a troll" post on such threads. :)


Now to the original post:
James767:

If you consider the amount of uncertainity we currently face, the upgrade price is really high. For me the vue bundling was a good compensation for taking these risks, and with the lwcad "surprise", I'm thinking it was a more or less "wise" decission.
(although its bad idea to post it in this thread: thanks to all who managed to provide this deal.)

There some rumors about a comming lw9 demo, if you want to be on the safe side, and not willing to take the risk, wait until its released (if they do) and check it for yourself. And if you think its not worth the money, tell newtek in detail WHY do you think its not worth the price.

DiedonD
02-02-2006, 05:55 AM
I dont know...James767 you sound to me like you cant download for free LW9, thereby to find rest within you, you come up with those excuses. Its just what seems to me, that maybe you are not eligable for a free lw9 download, and as a solution to that frustration you "rationalise" as they say in Psychoanalysis.

Also, I like modeler to the point that in the instructions manual, that comes with CD's, I think that they had made all the pages backwards starting from Layout.
I mean what can you animate if you havent learned the thing to animate with at first place. I would like it better if they first teach you how to make a model from scratch, and now that you have a model you can learn how to animate it in Layout, and not vice versa.

I wonder what was the reason for teaching Layout first?

Nemoid
02-02-2006, 07:27 AM
Guys , in my opinion, what stops -and with reason -many Lw users to work in apps like Maya or C4D, and in some cases even XSI, are the characteristics i talked about yet : selection system, item management etc. so, if one of these app would have a clever selection system and the other things i listed, for modelling purposes, well, modeler would be totally skipped , because of the many advantages nodal apps give to the users, when it comes the time of animation. plus, integration, to make all tool, editors windows and other devices, common.

To not talk about rigging and CA tools.

I do know for sure that in Maya, nodes can become problematic, but surely there are good ways to manage them and streamline their use when you work so that u take only the advantages and not the problems. expert users surely know them . (i don't)

i also don't love Maya selection system and modelling worlflow at all, and that's why i stick with Lw in that case.

But, heck no one says an app can be even better than Maya in production workflow.
Maya is an app that have to be highly customized through MEL scripts to become very productive. its its characteristic : it give you advantages , but asks you compiling Mel and so on.(here another thing i don't like)

Another characteristic it have is that its thought for animation and CA in particular. that's why its modelling workflow and selection system etc are not so productive.it has system to filter selection depending from geometry type tho. it seems a good thing to select things in the scenes. It also has outliner and other editors to help you better.

however, I believe that an app can be both things : productive out of the box as Lw is, and scriptable, for more difficult tasks, incorporating proprietary tools, and much more, as Maya is.

It really seems like XSI is going towards this way of thinking.

and its one - well organized - environment.

lets not talk about prices, lets talk about ideas put into organizing /developing the app, into a clever,solid, logic and productive way.

In my opinion Lw has the whole potential to become a fantastic 3D app, maybe the 3d app, but in my mind this needs integration.

Lw has not to become like Maya or like XSI .

it has to become better !!! :thumbsup:

tischbein3
02-02-2006, 08:19 AM
nemoid: 100% agree!

The lw workflow is good, because it allows you to do things straight away, and if you keep your polycount per model less than a million (plus/minus a million, depending on your discipline / hardware) lw can beat most of the 3d applications with its faster workflow.(simply because you didn't have to pay to much attention, the interface is streamlined.)

But as soon as your model / scenes start to get more complex, all those little slowdowners you have in other applications start to playout as advantages.
(Give you more flexibility and control on mesh / allows you more easily to refine the model.)

Also total agrement on scripting and sdk is not flexible enough (especially the "unnecessarily" time and work you have to invest when it comes parameter readout wich should be aviable without big hastle (because lw already has them in memory), plus the frustration wich results from the bad documentation and inconsistent behaviour).

The interesting thing about LW/Newtek current situation is (and a lot this is of course guessing+own observations):

They've realised current lw's concept needs a more drastical change, but they try to integrate it without disturbing the current workflow too much.
So going the small step development has advantages wich should not undervalued.


In my opinion Lw has the whole potential to become a fantastic 3D app, maybe the 3d app, but in my mind this needs integration.


As I stated before, it needs booth. A seperate modeler has some unbeateable advantages and a better integration would solve some longterm problems. The decission to modularise it more is the right way to go:

open doors without closing the old.

Nemoid
02-02-2006, 09:03 AM
well, i'll do some considerations again. LOL

tThe main things of a cool modern app in my mind are :

1) modern base core structure :

it has to be nodal in its core . and it has to be based on C++ programming as well. plus, it has to have a goos scriptability, with an own language based on c++ and c, and also be well suited for other languages, (python, perl and more)

you don't have to be forced to look at or use nodes in the app through UI, for normal tasks. complex tasks could take advantage of things,

2) good api and opened, well documented sdk : these are the devices for third party authors of plugins, plugins that have to be allowed to work seamplessly with the core and with each other.


3) good selection, item management, mesh editing tools, and in general, good workflow related to modelling, both organic and inorganic. in this sense, cad tools, snaps, instances and more would be welcome. cad tools are there now (yay !)
obviosly, i'mtalking about modelling, but its clear that these tools have to be streamlined for animation purposes too.

4 ) good rigging tools. bones , lattices, deformers, geometry as bones, armatures a la messiah. bones with influence area, very tweakable, so that you don't need weight maps. weight maps not slowing the app. (yes, tons of weight maps for bones slow greatly Lw).
possibility to tweak the rigging very much, both during animation , both allowing the user to import 7export rigs (with goals and expressions, customized null, Ik setup) and part of these rigs.
great flexibility for rigging. IK /FK blending in realtime with a click of te mouse.

enhanced endomorphs.


5) Good and very well thought timeline. also, one timeline with alot of features, activable with mouse and shortcuts too.
Good CA tools and Ik solver. -good and well organized editors for items, with good possibility to rename, renumber, organize items

6) great preview system. ok , here we have Fprime, and pimp seems to be another great tool, But they're commercial third party plugs but what about some great enhancement to viper.

7) BTW : fast and powerful built in rendering. but opening to alot of third party renderings : Mray,Vray, Renderman....complete support of subpixel displacement, normal maps.

8) topology brush

9) sculpting high polygons possibility

10 paint tools within the app.

11) UV unwrap tools native in the app. painting on Uvs support.

12 great use of layers. layers are way cool. but they need an enhanced/fantastic editor way better than the current one. they also ne to
have other visibility options when in background, not just wireframe.

13 a good, simple yet effectie editor like Maya's script editor

14) complete UI customization within UI in all elements and colors, viewports and their organization, buttons, eventual icons, fonts in buttons. navigation in all Ui through key shortcuts too.

complete mouse /UI navigation customization

15 Maya like manipulators for precise modelling. u don't have to be forced to click on them if you want , tho.

16 History/construction history

17) real instances, and instances for items, not objects only.


ok these are only a few things. some of them are quite there yet, some are needed !!

no mind - connection helmet so far. :D

Stooch
02-02-2006, 09:29 AM
I fully understand the benefits of having a merged app, I take advantage of them whenever I work in one, but I also know that for me, it's not worth the drawbacks.

There we go with the imaginary drawbacks. how do you know LW will have the drawbacks if you never used it in a more integrated state? there is just so much fear on these forums of change. its like people think that LW workflow is the ultimate and nothing must be done to change it. while in fact it has its drawbacks and integration is the most promising plan to minimize these drawbacks.

The hub is a bad solution presently. thats why severe proponents of a separate LW trumpet the ability to disable it. however to me thats a huge weakness. i need for my models to update automatically as i switch back and forth. i do that ALOT and its a key aspect of developing complex scenes. If LW or modeler crashes because of switching back and forth, we have a huge problem on our hands. Also if more tools are accessible from either program, we wont even need to switch as much. not to mention less ram usage (try doing high res prints).

i really could go on but this has been beaten to death already with sound logic i might add.

Nemoid
02-02-2006, 10:37 AM
Nemoid,
I agree with all of your suggestions.
How much of that stuff do you think we will get in the 9.X cycle.

It depends from several factors,and from Nt dev team, and Nt intentions.
We can only make suggestions.
When we'll be able to see 9.0 i will probably be able to give
you some better opinions.

I think that Nt should be able to get to ALL these things for Lw X version. :lwicon: :thumbsup:

spec24
02-02-2006, 10:51 AM
well, i'll do some considerations again. LOL

tThe main things of a cool modern app in my mind are :

1) modern base core structure :

it has to be nodal in its core . and it has to be based on C++ programming as well. plus, it has to have a goos scriptability, with an own language based on c++ and c, and also be well suited for other languages, (python, perl and more)

you don't have to be forced to look at or use nodes in the app through UI, for normal tasks. complex tasks could take advantage of things,

2) good api and opened, well documented sdk : these are the devices for third party authors of plugins, plugins that have to be allowed to work seamplessly with the core and with each other.


3) good selection, item management, mesh editing tools, and in general, good workflow related to modelling, both organic and inorganic. in this sense, cad tools, snaps, instances and more would be welcome. cad tools are there now (yay !)
obviosly, i'mtalking about modelling, but its clear that these tools have to be streamlined for animation purposes too.

4 ) good rigging tools. bones , lattices, deformers, geometry as bones, armatures a la messiah. bones with influence area, very tweakable, so that you don't need weight maps. weight maps not slowing the app. (yes, tons of weight maps for bones slow greatly Lw).
possibility to tweak the rigging very much, both during animation , both allowing the user to import 7export rigs (with goals and expressions, customized null, Ik setup) and part of these rigs.
great flexibility for rigging. IK /FK blending in realtime with a click of te mouse.

enhanced endomorphs.


5) Good and very well thought timeline. also, one timeline with alot of features, activable with mouse and shortcuts too.
Good CA tools and Ik solver. -good and well organized editors for items, with good possibility to rename, renumber, organize items

6) great preview system. ok , here we have Fprime, and pimp seems to be another great tool, But they're commercial third party plugs but what about some great enhancement to viper.

7) BTW : fast and powerful built in rendering. but opening to alot of third party renderings : Mray,Vray, Renderman....complete support of subpixel displacement, normal maps.

8) topology brush

9) sculpting high polygons possibility

10 paint tools within the app.

11) UV unwrap tools native in the app. painting on Uvs support.

12 great use of layers. layers are way cool. but they need an enhanced/fantastic editor way better than the current one. they also ne to
have other visibility options when in background, not just wireframe.

13 a good, simple yet effectie editor like Maya's script editor

14) complete UI customization within UI in all elements and colors, viewports and their organization, buttons, eventual icons, fonts in buttons. navigation in all Ui through key shortcuts too.

complete mouse /UI navigation customization

15 Maya like manipulators for precise modelling. u don't have to be forced to click on them if you want , tho.

16 History/construction history

17) real instances, and instances for items, not objects only.


ok these are only a few things. some of them are quite there yet, some are needed !!

no mind - connection helmet so far. :D

A certain app that rhymes with fender (hope I don't get deleted :( )already has most of these, and it's free. Granted from what I've heard it's not great to use, but hey, you can't go wrong with that price.

Nemoid
02-02-2006, 02:07 PM
ROFLMAO ! Blender is a good app, BTW :D and its free. but it doesn't correspond exactly to my idea of ease of use...
also ask yourself, Just how can happen a free app have better features than a commercial one? :D
LOL

ercaxus
02-02-2006, 02:16 PM
A certain app that rhymes with fender (hope I don't get deleted :( )already has most of these, and it's free. Granted from what I've heard it's not great to use, but hey, you can't go wrong with that price.

Man isn't that disturbing :lol: Also it is the best(price included in the word 'best' here) LW-Fluid solution at the moment.

hrgiger
02-02-2006, 02:59 PM
Man isn't that disturbing :lol: Also it is the best(price included in the word 'best' here) LW-Fluid solution at the moment.


BTW, do you have the link for that thread that describes that process for using blender for fluids in LW? I remember seeing it on CGTalk.

jeremyhardin
02-02-2006, 03:45 PM
BTW, do you have the link for that thread that describes that process for using blender for fluids in LW? I remember seeing it on CGTalk.
http://www.newtek.com/forums/showthread.php?t=44032&highlight=blender+fluids

http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthread.php?t=304625

http://www.spinquad.com/forums/showthread.php?t=10042

:thumbsup:

hrgiger
02-02-2006, 03:58 PM
Thanks Jeremy. Merci buckets.

RedBull
02-02-2006, 04:29 PM
There we go with the imaginary drawbacks. how do you know LW will have the drawbacks if you never used it in a more integrated state?

i really could go on but this has been beaten to death already with sound logic i might add.

Imaginary? How do you know it won't have drawbacks if you have never used it in a more integrated state.....?

With all due respect, LW integration will offer advantages of course.

You can't integrate night and day without losing some good from both
It's a comprimise and a solution... Not just a solution.

It will offer advantages and as the laws of nature require, it will also have it's downsides.... Because you can't take without giving.....

I too could speculate on all the expected goods and bads, but i'm not going to.. Only to say those who believe you can gain everything from losing nothing, are those who aren't aware of everything to begin with....



Just how can happen a free app have better features than a commercial one? LOL

Quite easily, Open source initiatives allow for far faster and more intensive
attention from universities, schools, programmers, students, groups and more.

Universities don't need to buy expensive copies of Maya unlimited to teach fluid dynamics programming, when they can use Blender and Linux...

How could a privately owned company software product compete with a
team of programmers say 25, against Blenders hordes of university graphics
departments around the world..... It would take one university to have more programming power than LW and NT does now.

I assure in the next 10 years, commercial companies are going to become continually more annoyed by what can be done for free.....

People who needs to watch out.... The big bullies for commercial applications..
Microsoft, Adobe, Autodesk.... Will have many a problems in the next 10 years, when the opensource product will offer more than the commercial equiv for a lot less...

Gregg "T.Rex"
02-02-2006, 05:14 PM
I assure in the next 10 years, commercial companies are going to become continually more annoyed by what can be done for free.....

People who needs to watch out.... The big bullies for commercial applications..
Microsoft, Adobe, Autodesk.... Will have many a problems in the next 10 years, when the opensource product will offer more than the commercial equiv for a lot less...

You 're right on this, but also there are may examples today where universities, teams, individuals and students have come up with great pieces of codes and in one way or another they made huge profit, instead of giving those code lines to open source apps for free...

It's not the quantity that matters, but the quality; what good can do to have an army of inexperienced programmers, instead of one or two master mind gurus?

Those who can distinguish from the many, the big guys you mention will buy them out, no doubt that.

Take this guy here (http://graphics.stanford.edu/~fedkiw/) for excample. He dosen't "sell" his research to companies like Alias, XSI and the like. Nor he "code" for open source communities. ILM made sure of that, every time they sign a paycheck for him.

What you said is right; but, there are always two sides on a coin. I don't think that the current state we have will change much, in the next 10 years...

Mha8649
02-02-2006, 05:58 PM
People who needs to watch out.... The big bullies for commercial applications..
Microsoft, Adobe, Autodesk.... Will have many a problems in the next 10 years, when the opensource product will offer more than the commercial equiv for a lot less...

I remember a time when microsoft windows was open source :D .

RedBull
02-02-2006, 07:25 PM
You 're right on this, but also there are may examples today where universities, teams, individuals and students have come up with great pieces of codes and in one way or another they made huge profit, instead of giving those code lines to open source apps for free...

It's not the quantity that matters, but the quality; what good can do to have an army of inexperienced programmers, instead of one or two master mind gurus?

Those who can distinguish from the many, the big guys you mention will buy them out, no doubt that.

What you said is right; but, there are always two sides on a coin. I don't think that the current state we have will change much, in the next 10 years...

You are correct, and most universties can never have enough funding
so making a commercial outlet for there own wares, is a hugely necessary evil of education. And i have no problems with this......

If we take Blender for example it's quite okay for a University to say okay
class we are going to study Fluid Dynamics this semester, we will as a class
be looking for best methodoligies for CFD and will write a Blender module
as a showcase..... 6 months of research done by graduates hoping to one day write a CFD program used by ILM.... So they do good with a Blender module, and then graduate and go and use their ideas and concepts into thier own pockets, or they take what they learn from Blender and make Flowline (or similar) which is sold through the University so it may fund other projects.

99% of research for 3D etc is done at University level, Microsoft spend heaps on R&D but it's nothing compared to a global university level.....

It also doesn't have to be opensource.... Take Voodoo for example (matchmoving software built by DigiLabs a commercial division of hanover university in Germany) give the program away, but take the technology to use later for their own commercial reasons.. Thorsten the creator is also
studying at the University of Adelaide in Australia, giving the wealth of research and reach great potential and global levels.

Never underestimate armies, they always win wars..... :)

The great thing about Open standards is you can't buy them out....
You can steal the talent that created it, but the genie can controlled by a new master then....

The best defense against open source is open source.....

If companies are smart, that will embrace the changes and impacts it brings
and drive their commericial ambitons with the open and in conjunction standards...

Microsoft have tried to kill OpenGL's open standards to DirectX and D3D.
Sun gave us the open Java janguage, Microsoft removed it from the OS.
and gave us .net instead.....

You can see how Microsoft are running scared of losing control, they are spending huge resources to defend thier position, not attacking them as they once were.... This will eventually bring them down (somewhat) backing themselves into corners, luckily just have deep enough pockets to battle the world for decades....

Anyway..... Don't want to hijack the thread, theirs lots of interesting
aspects of commercial vs open standard arguments i think. I better stop before i get lost... :)

Record Companies didn't like it when MP3's were released they've spent Billions of dollars on battling every file sharing network in the world....

Yet companies are making fist fulls of money for MP3 players and now by owning or legal methods of music sharing like Yahoo or Apple...
Now that the record companies are realising that they can embrace change
and still make money.... All by harnessing and embracing the future, rather than fighting it all the way.....

MikeMD
02-02-2006, 08:25 PM
Just how can happen a free app have better features than a commercial one?

It doesn't.

Having features doesn't mean they are good at all or usable in a real production. I remember years ago when Truespace had bones and other things/features, but they were so bad you couldn't do anything with them.

Any app can say. We have this and that. It means nothing unless it also works as well as the commercial apps.

Gregg "T.Rex"
02-02-2006, 09:00 PM
Never underestimate armies, they always win wars.....

Not always; depends on the adversary... :hey:

Good points, though; well said... :beerchug:

Cheers,

Stooch
02-02-2006, 09:30 PM
Imaginary? How do you know it won't have drawbacks if you have never used it in a more integrated state.....?

With all due respect, LW integration will offer advantages of course.

You can't integrate night and day without losing some good from both
It's a comprimise and a solution... Not just a solution.

You cant do anything without losing some good.

It's a solution... Not just a compromise.




I too could speculate on all the expected goods and bads, but i'm not going to.. Only to say those who believe you can gain everything from losing nothing, are those who aren't aware of everything to begin with....

What happened to the "all due respect"? Is it because you are aware of everything to begin with?

faulknermano
02-02-2006, 11:13 PM
There we go with the imaginary drawbacks. how do you know LW will have the drawbacks if you never used it in a more integrated state?

from a logical stance, how do you know LW will not have drawbacks?

while i am for an "well-rounded" Layout, the reason some people are apprehensive, i think, is because of their experience of other "integrated" solutions. those people who have that experience have more reason to be apprehensive and your criticism of them saying they are afraid of change is not right. you may criticise those who have not used any other "integrated" app as "afraid of change". but surely not those who opine based on their experience.

kennez
02-03-2006, 02:11 AM
I normally don't join in with threads like this, because, frankly, they are annoying and pointless. However, I thought I'd chip in with my view on the integrated/separated argument going on:

Why all the fuss? My opinion is that we should be thankful for what we have at the moment: a great program. Why can't everybody have the attitude which I have regarding this - if it's separate, great. If it's integrated, great.

Honestly, what's all the fuss about. Originally, I never thought I'd like the separate apps workflow, but I got used to it. I like it. However, for some things I like in antegrated workflow. Why doesn't everybody just drop this pointless argument and enjoy what we have (and what we will be getting soon!)

toby
02-03-2006, 02:17 AM
There we go with the imaginary drawbacks.


You cant do anything without losing some good.

You should probably make up your mind before you go around acting like people are stupid for having a different opinion than you.

Nemoid
02-03-2006, 08:43 AM
I thought we were discussing about Lw and possible advantages of integration or separation, and most important advantages of a modern environment, and modern approach to development.

it could be important for Nt to know what we think.

attacking each other will not give them any information.

adboy
02-03-2006, 11:28 AM
this thread is like to many others, i gave up posting here for a long while, as if u suggest something that people dont agree with. or may suggest that newtek need to pull there finger out to stay compeditive u get called a troll or what ever, as a few others have mentioned u can have an opinion without insulting each other, and newtek need these opinions to be heard to get idea's of what need fixing, if you post is just about putting down anotehr person then just leave it out and save some space

Stooch
02-03-2006, 01:40 PM
from a logical stance, how do you know LW will not have drawbacks?

while i am for an "well-rounded" Layout, the reason some people are apprehensive, i think, is because of their experience of other "integrated" solutions. those people who have that experience have more reason to be apprehensive and your criticism of them saying they are afraid of change is not right. you may criticise those who have not used any other "integrated" app as "afraid of change". but surely not those who opine based on their experience.


what do OTHER integrated apps have to do with LW? also where did i say that it wont have any drawbacks? I said that IMO its the most promising way to reduce the drawbacks.

Stooch
02-03-2006, 01:42 PM
You should probably make up your mind before you go around acting like people are stupid for having a different opinion than you.

is that right? I didnt imply that anyone was stupid, however if you interpreted that then maybe you have a superiority complex or assuming too much about my patterns of thought. I just expressed my opinion and i dont care if you like it or not. Thanks for your valuable opinion about me though, it has nothing to do with LW but i hope it made you feel better about yourself.

Heads up everyone, if you think that integration is the way to go, then anyone who thinks otherwise must be stupid...

now i see why this topic is such a sore spot. jeez, people start acting like I slapped their momma or something.

Bog
02-03-2006, 01:48 PM
Well. This thread calls for a beer.

Nobody's forcing anyone to upgrade. If you don't like LW, don't upgrade. If you do like LW, or fancy the featureset of Nine, upgrade. It's a free country (at least where LW is written (mainly)).

Personally, I don't see the point of the initial post. If you don't want to upgrade, why waste brainspace on a thread about why you're going to a competing product?

I applaud the forum admins for not just nuking this thread as flamebait. It shows a willingness to be criticised, and to learn from that criticism that is a couple of rungs up the evolutionary ladder than some of the comments that have been lobbed around.

toby
02-03-2006, 05:30 PM
There we go with the imaginary drawbacks. how do you know LW will have the drawbacks if you never used it in a more integrated state?
Can you do test renders while you model with a merged app? No.
Can you save a huge scene in a file that's less than a meg, and that saves faster than you can press the next key? No. Try saving an architectural scene over a network. Hope you have a book with you.
Can you save a scene without saving your models? No.
They're called drawbacks, and I'm not making them up.


there is just so much fear on these forums of change. its like people think that LW workflow is the ultimate and nothing must be done to change it. while in fact it has its drawbacks and integration is the most promising plan to minimize these drawbacks.

So I think adding a few of modeler's functions to layout is a great solution.
That means I'm not afraid of change. And except for the absence of uv tools and making adjustments through the camera, it is the best workflow,
for me. I never expressed or even implied that merging was stupid, or that everyone should agree with me.


The hub is a bad solution presently. thats why severe proponents of a separate LW trumpet the ability to disable it. however to me thats a huge weakness. i need for my models to update automatically as i switch back and forth. i do that ALOT and its a key aspect of developing complex scenes. If LW or modeler crashes because of switching back and forth, we have a huge problem on our hands. Also if more tools are accessible from either program, we wont even need to switch as much. not to mention less ram usage (try doing high res prints).

The problem with the Hub is stability, which is as much of an argument for more stability as it is for merging - and I do recommend turning it off. Not only is re-importing objects as simple as 2 keystrokes, but it also allows you to try different surfacing and restore the original easily if you don't like the results.

toby
02-03-2006, 05:43 PM
is that right? I didnt imply that anyone was stupid, however if you interpreted that then maybe you have a superiority complex or assuming too much about my patterns of thought.I just expressed my opinion and i dont care if you like it or not. Thanks for your valuable opinion about me though, it has nothing to do with LW but i hope it made you feel better about yourself.

You're desperate to turn this into another pissing match aren't you? Yes, you expressed your opinion that everybody who doesn't want integration is merely scared, and stupid for thinking that LW "is the ultimate".



now i see why this topic is such a sore spot. jeez, people start acting like I slapped their momma or something.

Well maybe you'll learn to go to a redneck bar when you feel like starting a fight.

theo
02-03-2006, 08:25 PM
Geesh guys...settle down.

Kurtis
02-04-2006, 03:15 AM
This thread has served it's purpose. The original poster has accomplished what he set out to do, and the coversation has gone beyond that topic and beyond civil discourse. It is now closed.