PDA

View Full Version : New 3D app now available....



Pages : 1 [2]

James Edwards
06-05-2006, 10:10 PM
frantbk: In all the forums you've posted on, you always manage to alienate yourself by posting incredibly ridiculous amounts of bs. I'm with Panikos. I find the lengths you go to just to be devils advocate to the rest of the world quite amusing. Do you even do anything remotely related to 3d for a living? Because most people I know who do, are much more concerned with what a program can do for them RIGHT NOW - not what it doesn't do, or will do in the future. Nothing else really matters - not company road maps or holding them to the letter of their feature lists or promises of things to come or any sense of loyalty to developers - none of that means squat. A program is either useful to you or it isn't. You use it for what it can offer you or you find something that does.

Captain Obvious
06-05-2006, 10:17 PM
Luxology hasn't state publicly that modo 301 is delayed because of 201. You're one and half months away from Siggraph 2006. Modo 201 was designed to be replaced by modo 301 and you want Lux to waste time fixing 201? Not only did Lux lose focus on modo 201, but the modo 201 crowd has lost focus on the big picture nad Lux's roadmap. You want Lux to fix a product that will be scrapped with the release of 301, and you're the fanboy of commonsense and logic?:D
You mean exactly how 101 was to be replaced by 201, yet saw two rather significant upgrades?

phil lawson
06-06-2006, 01:37 AM
Softimage XSI 5 was release at the end of August 2005. Five point one was release four-six months later. Lightwave ( has yet to be release so I don't know if it needs a patch yet. 3DMax, did it have a patch seven days after its release? I don't think it did. Modo has had 9 months of development, 4.5 months of Friday updates and 7 day after it is release you need a patch? The majority of you haven't had enough time on modo that you should need a patch.

Your level of expectatikon is set so low that the modo crowd doesn't even know what should be a reasonable amount of time before a patch is needed. This poor horse broke its leg coming out of the gate and you and the others think thats ok!

LOL

Edit: Nice how you know me so well and what software I use to judge my level of "expectatikon"... Why dont you just admit that you have a personal grudge against a software company..jessshh I actually said that...makes everything sound just silly and childish.

I'm not commenting anymore on this thread...it makes no sense to me at all...at the end of the day, its a tool that makes you money that we're talking about..end of...and alot of studios/people are making money from it. It works for me, sorry it doesnt work for you.

Cheers.

frantbk
06-06-2006, 04:54 AM
THe fact that everyone of you complaining is a hard core modo poster. Why should I care what you think. If the Lux team stopped at LW7 then tell who worked on LW 8. You have a new program that your proud to have and talk about OK some of the information has some value. But the question - cavaet still is this program worth $895.00.

The answer is still NO! The pricing from this company is alwasy about a quick buck and you and they others are running down a cattle shute upgrading from one dead program to another dead program. If my view is silly they I glad to be silly and still have all of my pennys at the end of the day. What do you have? another dead program. :screwy:

Chris S. (Fez)
06-06-2006, 05:20 AM
IMO, Modo 201 is worth the investment for the customization and consolidated modeling toolset alone.

Aegis
06-06-2006, 05:31 AM
Geez! What's wrong with you people? Can't we just put the hate away and get back to the art?

It seems there's a lot of LightWave users out there that want modo to fail - why? Competition is good! It breeds innovation and forces developers to raise their game - some people blame the Lux guys for LightWave's falling behind the competition - some people say they were held back and needed to break away to create their idea of what next-gen 3D software should be. You can argue this all you want but you'll just end up chasing 'round in circles.

LightWave and modo aren't the only two 3D apps on the market - NewTek and Lux are in competition with Autodesk, Avid, Maxon and a host of others - don't take this all so personally - if modo fails then it will be down to it's own failings - likewise for LightWave. modo has many features that would be desirable in LW - LW has many features yet to appear in modo - the same with Maya, Max, C4D etc.

201 has only just hit the market and yes, bugs are turning up - I don't see anything unusual in this - NewTek are taking longer than ever before to get 9 out and signs are that this will be the most stable, production-ready version of LightWave yet - kudos to them - it's a bold move and it risks angering the userbase 'cause you're making them wait so long (which is why the public beta was such a good idea). Does this mean there won't be any bugs? No! Does this mean there won't be a 9.x release? Of course not!

Likewise, modo will get its patches - the 10x cycle saw 101,102 and 103 - 201 certainly has its issues but there's no showstoppers so far as I've seen - it's a brand new app (relatively speaking) and it'll take time to develop into a fully-featured production tool but it's already off to a helluva start and the better modo gets, the better LightWave and all the other apps will have to be to compete and vice versa.

At the end of the day, use what works for you - I use LightWave, modo, Hexagon, Silo, ZBrush, Messiah - whatever fits the job. As for price? Well if you're a professional and you build a few (or possibly even one) models in modo then it's already paid for itself right? Heck, with the 30 day evaluation version Lux encourages you to make money with it 'cause then you can buy it!

leuey
06-06-2006, 01:15 PM
I love it when somebody tells me how much a program is worth to me. Thanks for enlightening me Frank - I thought I made a great choice when I bought Modo, made all that money, actually enjoyed modelling again, was finally able to stop relying on an outdated program that I'd been using for 10 years.

Thanks for explaining it to me so clearly. I'll immediately stop using modo, make less money, spend more time in front of the computer, and go blow the dust off my copy of LW. What in the world was I thinking buying a cutting edge program that's made my life a lot easier and made me more money? I definately should have spent the money upgrading LW for the 7th or 8th time.

Modo may not be worth it to YOU..and I'm not retarded enough to try and argue that. But please don't tell me (or the thousands of happy Modo users) that it wasn't worth it for us. It's not like anybody takes you seriously anyway - but I thought I'd use you as an example detailing how pointless these 'is it worth it' arguements are.

-Greg



But the question - cavaet still is this program worth $895.00.

The answer is still NO! . :screwy:

radams
06-06-2006, 04:47 PM
Geez! What's wrong with you people? Can't we just put the hate away and get back to the art?...

Hi Andrew,

This so Totally says it !!!!

Something that I've been cautioning pros and hobbiest a like is that too many times we get wrapped up in our tools and NOT our creative visions...this takes away from ALL of us when this happens.

I've become very concerned on the LW side of these forums...that it again has become a flame, bash, hate, fest...making personal attacks and grandstanding....look at me or what I say is the truth...and screw the rest of you attitude.

One of the BIGGEST things LW had going for it is its support community of users....

I know that we are all passionate about our goals and dreams...and that we all want to see things move in a direction that suites us...

Please be respectful of others...even if they throw mud...don't go down that road...

These forums are the most interesting and helpful when we take a respectiful tone....not that you have to be PC about everything...and PLEASE do disagree....but leave the personal bashing and satirical name calling to private messages. We all benefit more when we agree or disagree because of x, y, &/or z.

Remember that there will always be those trying to fan a flame...but it is up to us to be consumed by it or NOT.

First, I would like to thank NT for even allowing such a thread to exist in the first place. It is helpful when other tools that can work with your workflow can be discussed openly...that does not always happen with competing companies...especially ones with the personal pasts.

Of course there will be mixed perceptions etc...
See what does what YOU the artist need to create what you need... DON'T let personalities or any application take over or get in the way of your vision or creativity.

There will be those who can afford anything and everything...mix and match...then there are those who have put all they had into a limited option but still must use that to produce...

Artistry is being able to show your creativity and vision with what you have available to create with. That doesn't mean that someone with Maya and all the custom code in the world can push a button and make something better than some passionate artist with Blender.

We all need and wish features and workflows to better fit our focus and needs...that doesn't mean one size fits all...let alone one workflow works for any or all productions.

Time to drop the flames and hate...from ALL SIDES PLEASE. This and other threads on this forum have gotten too caught in this negative haze.

Cheers All, and let get back to creating :)

Aegis
06-06-2006, 05:12 PM
Hi Ray! Good to see you! Did you get my email way back when about RGB mattes in Mirage? I'd still like to see a filter/script for this - did you have any joy with it or should I hassle Steve?

Been trying to find out if any of the Bauhaus guys are gonna be at Siggraph this year - you going?

Andy.

radams
06-06-2006, 05:19 PM
Hi Ray! Good to see you! Did you get my email way back when about RGB mattes in Mirage? I'd still like to see a filter/script for this - did you have any joy with it or should I hassle Steve?

Been trying to find out if any of the Bauhaus guys are gonna be at Siggraph this year - you going?

Andy.


Hi Andy,

Yeah, and I thought I sent you a couple of options on how to actually work with RGB mattes and some tools to do it ? Hmmm...its been awhile and yes Steve did also help with it.

I don't have those materials with me at this time...get with me off forum...(Remember I'm back in the US for now ;)

It does not look like I will be going to Siggraph this year unless I'm working it ;) hint...hint to anyone out there...


[email protected]

Cheers,

frantbk
06-06-2006, 07:07 PM
I don't care if modo is a success or a failure. Glossing over warts is and acting like someone having a different view from the modo crowd is getting old fast.

People that report problems with modo are be call the problem not modo, and this is the Newtek site that this is happening on. If you love modo fine, but ****! keep it at the lux site. If people want to beat up on modo here because they don't share the others view, too bad so sad; spare me the PR junk about the wonder of modo.

mattclary
06-06-2006, 09:39 PM
Geez, people! 261 posts?!? Don't y'all get tired of this? :screwy:

My app is better than your app!

No it's not, your app blows!

Yeah? well yours swallows!

Hey! You take that back, &*^#!

@$&**$ @%^$&^ (twice)!

&*%^*& you and Brad Peebler too, you ^%*&$^!

oknowyouvedoneit*%**&%*(^%!Iknowwhereyoulive!

illbewaitingforyou^&%$$!

ivanze
06-06-2006, 09:54 PM
HAHAHA!!!

That was funny mattclary.

Sometimes this forums look like a soap opera script.

Funny thing is that I like to read all this fights.

Captain Obvious
06-06-2006, 10:13 PM
I don't care if modo is a success or a failure. Glossing over warts is and acting like someone having a different view from the modo crowd is getting old fast.

People that report problems with modo are be call the problem not modo, and this is the Newtek site that this is happening on. If you love modo fine, but ****! keep it at the lux site. If people want to beat up on modo here because they don't share the others view, too bad so sad; spare me the PR junk about the wonder of modo.
Consider yourself killfiled. That right there is just too weird.

faulknermano
06-06-2006, 10:37 PM
wonder what happened to maya?

many software apps == many software clans. there's much to be said about innovation and competition. that, or human nature.

JML
06-07-2006, 06:31 AM
I agree with the above,
the forum should not have any flame/hate threads,
and it should not have any thread related to the marketing of other programs.

Andyjaggy
06-07-2006, 09:23 AM
Imagine if we had professional football teams made out of different 3D app users. Those would be some brutal games, I certainly would pay to go see them.

JML
06-07-2006, 10:21 AM
Imagine if we had professional football teams made out of different 3D app users. Those would be some brutal games, I certainly would pay to go see them.

you should send that idea to the people that did american idol,realworld,
or any of those other f**k**g reality shows.
they would probably make it. :)

frantbk
06-08-2006, 11:27 AM
I don't see this as competition between lightwave and modo. Some people have stated that the render in modo hasn't lived up to their expectations on speed. If you've watched all of the Friday videos why would you make that statement now? From Jan to March modo demonstrated higher render speeds then the Friday videos of April thru May. If you had paid atention to the videos you could see after a specific beta reverison that modo was slowing down.

I don't mind hearing the good points of modo as long as you're willing to answer questions about the bad points of modo, or just answer questions. What happened to the netrendering in modo 201? Is anyone netrendering? What happened to that imaging plugin? Is anyone using that? If you want me to listen to all the good point about modo answer some of the question about its bad points.

phil lawson
06-08-2006, 12:52 PM
I don't mind hearing the good points of modo as long as you're willing to answer questions about the bad points of modo, or just answer questions. What happened to the netrendering in modo 201? Is anyone netrendering? What happened to that imaging plugin? Is anyone using that? If you want me to listen to all the good point about modo answer some of the question about its bad points.

Ok, I will answer questions as long as Newtek are happy regarding this:-

Net Rendering: It was always slated for an after 201 release. We might hear more about it in the next few months.

Imaging plugin: Image Synth is available to all who bought modo 201 and is under their account. It works well, but its not magic and can produce a mess if you always just click generate...more complex scenes take time to setup rather than the simple stuff shown in videos. Its still a very handy tool for getting nice, custom tilable images.

Yes the renderer is slightly slower than eairly vids in some cases, but a 1024x1024 GI plus 8xAA shotglass scene still only takes about 8mins using a 4400+.

9 secs for a GI, 1.8 million poly, displacement, ZB head at 800x600 isnt bad though.

Cheers.

phil lawson
06-08-2006, 01:17 PM
I stand corrected, its 9 secs without GI and 13 secs with GI for the ZB head.

Please dont get me wrong though, modo needs alot of work and is nowhere near perfect.

oDDity
06-08-2006, 01:37 PM
That could be said of any app on the market, in fact, that's why there are so many, because none are perfect and there is no clear choice to make.

phil lawson
06-08-2006, 01:47 PM
That could be said of any app on the market, in fact, that's why there are so many, because none are perfect and there is no clear choice to make.

Very true oDDity.

Andyjaggy
06-08-2006, 04:03 PM
I just went and checked out the Modo website. It looks like it has alot of potential, but I am sure it has it isn't perfect, just like Lightwave isn't. Until version 9 comes out anyway........ still waiting. I can pick up a full copy of Modo for $99. Being a student with good grades rocks! I think I'll use that money to upgrade to version 9 though.

frantbk
06-09-2006, 06:22 AM
I stand corrected, its 9 secs without GI and 13 secs with GI for the ZB head.

Please dont get me wrong though, modo needs alot of work and is nowhere near perfect.

Do you know anyone using Xeon's or Operton's and if you do, have they had less problems then the mid-range chips with the program over all.

Captain Obvious
06-09-2006, 07:13 AM
Do you know anyone using Xeon's or Operton's and if you do, have they had less problems then the mid-range chips with the program over all.
Was that even English?

phil lawson
06-09-2006, 07:51 AM
Do you know anyone using Xeon's or Operton's and if you do, have they had less problems then the mid-range chips with the program over all.

Yup and they are alot faster as expected than the mid range chips but this is like any application.

vertexmonkey.com has a rough guide of how they match up. Its not an ideal test as you dont know what applications or settings everyone has running, but it gives a basic idea.

Cheers.

Edit: Most of the hardware problems people are having is video card related rather than processor btw.

phil lawson
06-09-2006, 08:08 AM
I just went and checked out the Modo website. It looks like it has alot of potential, but I am sure it has it isn't perfect, just like Lightwave isn't. Until version 9 comes out anyway........ still waiting. I can pick up a full copy of Modo for $99. Being a student with good grades rocks! I think I'll use that money to upgrade to version 9 though.

Yes, [9] is a fantastic upgrade and well worth it. I'm more than pleased with the direction its going.

Cheers.

frantbk
06-10-2006, 07:29 AM
Yes, [9] is a fantastic upgrade and well worth it. I'm more than pleased with the direction its going.

Cheers.
Haveyou used the new camera functions yet? If you hae what are your impressions about them and there usefullness?

About the xeon an Operton's, I thought that class of cpu would have a better time with modo. Just by the Siggraph 05 videos. Well anyway that class of chip doesn't cost that much more then the high end of the P4 class. What video cards seem to be in the majority of having problems?

phil lawson
06-10-2006, 08:13 AM
Yes, the camera functions similar to the standard viewport navigation control and I find it easy enough to get shots placed with it. Lights on the other hand need a lot of work. You can view from the lights point of view, but theres no target object. A user has created a script for this, but it needs to be a built in feature.

As for the processors, I think they were sponsors of the event...so they were always going to come off as the processor to get. AMD's seem to out peform the intel chips in real world tests.

A selection of Nvidia cards are the main problem, but its tuff to say whos fault it is, due to updating drivers solves alot of stability problems.

Cheers.

Aegis
06-10-2006, 06:01 PM
Seems to be a lot of people with GeForce 6800's having issues - this doesn't really surprise me as (and I have one myself so I guess I'm qualified to comment) nVidia's support for these cards has been dreadful - LightWave still has issues with it (grid clipping), multi-monitor support is very flaky (the nVidia .dlls just die after a while) and with VBOs turned on. modo is very temperamental. A real shame, as game performance with this card (Doom 3. Half Life 2) has been phenomenal.

nVidia just couldn't seem to distance themselves from the 6xxx series quick enough - most of their driver updates have been addressing 7xxx series issues - they just left the 6xxx series users out on a limb. Not their finest hour - so much so, I'm considering ATI for my next GFX card which is ironic considering that nVidia's OpenGL support has historically been far superior.

In addition, some GeForce FX users have been having issues with modo but once again, that's no surprise - the FX series was another poor release from nVidia but that said, I had a GeForce FX 5900 XT and the driver support for that was way better than nVidia's support for the 6xxx's...

frantbk
06-11-2006, 06:26 AM
Seems to be a lot of people with GeForce 6800's having issues - this doesn't really surprise me as (and I have one myself so I guess I'm qualified to comment) nVidia's support for these cards has been dreadful - LightWave still has issues with it (grid clipping), multi-monitor support is very flaky (the nVidia .dlls just die after a while) and with VBOs turned on. modo is very temperamental. A real shame, as game performance with this card (Doom 3. Half Life 2) has been phenomenal.

nVidia just couldn't seem to distance themselves from the 6xxx series quick enough - most of their driver updates have been addressing 7xxx series issues - they just left the 6xxx series users out on a limb. Not their finest hour - so much so, I'm considering ATI for my next GFX card which is ironic considering that nVidia's OpenGL support has historically been far superior.

In addition, some GeForce FX users have been having issues with modo but once again, that's no surprise - the FX series was another poor release from nVidia but that said, I had a GeForce FX 5900 XT and the driver support for that was way better than nVidia's support for the 6xxx's...

Have you noticed if the problem is specific to one manufacture of the nVidia card? I know nVidia makes the chipsets, but there are so many producers from Pny, Asus, Abit that it makes one wonder if one brand is having more trouble then another it might be the oem of the card that could be the problem, but if the trouble is across all of the different oem brands, then the chipset would be the major problem.

I don't blame you for wanting to switch to ATI that new 1 Gig fireGL card does look sweet.

frantbk
06-11-2006, 06:33 AM
Yes, the camera functions similar to the standard viewport navigation control and I find it easy enough to get shots placed with it. Lights on the other hand need a lot of work. You can view from the lights point of view, but theres no target object. A user has created a script for this, but it needs to be a built in feature.

As for the processors, I think they were sponsors of the event...so they were always going to come off as the processor to get. AMD's seem to out peform the intel chips in real world tests.

A selection of Nvidia cards are the main problem, but its tuff to say whos fault it is, due to updating drivers solves alot of stability problems.

Cheers.


Yes it starting to look like buying the higher end cpu's will have a better payoff for enduser satisfaction. That should be expected when you think about it. That type of chip was designed to handle these types of programs where the others are targeted for more general use. When you compare prices the Operton 100/200 series really don't cost that much more then the highend athlon 64/FX series. Intel has a complete line of good xeons for just a little more then $300. Of course these are not dual-core units, but they do, in some series, have hyper-threading.

Captain Obvious
06-11-2006, 07:59 AM
The Athlon64 is the same exact CPU as the Opteron. If an Athlon64 performs poorly at a certain task, so will the Opteron. If an Athlon64 performs well at a certain task, so will the Opteron. The same holds true for the Xeons and Pentium 4/D/whatever: they're the same CPU. The only significant difference is that the Xeons and Opterons can work in multi-CPU setups.

frantbk
06-11-2006, 01:57 PM
The Athlon64 is the same exact CPU as the Opteron. If an Athlon64 performs poorly at a certain task, so will the Opteron. If an Athlon64 performs well at a certain task, so will the Opteron. The same holds true for the Xeons and Pentium 4/D/whatever: they're the same CPU. The only significant difference is that the Xeons and Opterons can work in multi-CPU setups.

The FX series my be the same as the Operton, but the athlon64 I don't think it is. The only P4 series that is a xeon is the exterme edition. After this post this is the first and last I'm going to talk about this issue. If you have any other question check the Intel/AMD whitepapers about the information.

Lightwolf
06-11-2006, 04:37 PM
The FX series my be the same as the Operton, but the athlon64 I don't think it is.
It is, the only difference bein cache sizes (even amongst families) and the number of HT links to hook up more CPUs. A 1xx Opteron is virtually identical to a socket 939 Athlon.


The only P4 series that is a xeon is the exterme edition.
There are FSB and cache size differences, as well as the availability of Hyperthreading, but these vary across the CPU families as well. The whole P4/Xeon series is based on the same netburst core.

After this post this is the first and last I'm going to talk about this issue. If you have any other question check the Intel/AMD whitepapers about the information.
Do that, and read the whitepapers before you get back ;) ( SCNR )

Cheers,
Mike

frantbk
06-12-2006, 06:12 AM
It is, the only difference bein cache sizes (even amongst families) and the number of HT links to hook up more CPUs. A 1xx Opteron is virtually identical to a socket 939 Athlon.

There are FSB and cache size differences, as well as the availability of Hyperthreading, but these vary across the CPU families as well. The whole P4/Xeon series is based on the same netburst core.

Do that, and read the whitepapers before you get back ;) ( SCNR )

Cheers,
Mike

Yes and also the way it controls memory and the FPU is modified for graphical calculations and many other difference. Remember we are not just talking about the 100 series but the whole of the Operton series 100, 200, 800.

The xeon is base on the sme netburst core, the D series of celeron uses the P4 core. If you look at the celeron it is the 423 chip pined out for 428, or 775 pinout. It is not just the core that matters, the xeon MP series is core compatible, but that still doesn't make it a xeon. It is a different chip with different requirments and it handles memory and other functions differently. So lets stop the gerenlization about every chip is the same. Once you leave the core it is a different chip needing different chipsets on a motherboard to make it work (mores so in the Intel series then the AMD)

When the pinout changes from 423 to 428 t0 775 the chip doesn't have a backward compatibility to the last generation. A 939 pin out is not the same as a 940 pinout chip. THey share the same family tree but they are not the same chip, nor do they function the same because of the difference in pinout.

Lightwolf
06-12-2006, 06:27 AM
So lets stop the gerenlization about every chip is the same. Once you leave the core it is a different chip needing different chipsets on a motherboard to make it work (mores so in the Intel series then the AMD)

Nobody doubts that, but the cores are still the same. and that is where the bulk of processing takes place. So, looking at the cores the P4s and Xeons _are_ the same (since they all use the same Netburst cores), and the Athlon64s, Opterons and Sempron64s are the same as well.
The only differences beeing the support for different instruction sets, such as the addition of SSE3 - but those tend to come with later core revisions, not with specific family members (i.e. all 90nm AMD cores, except for the Semprons, support SSE3, while even an Opteron at 130nm doesn't).

Cheers,
Mike

Stooch
06-12-2006, 09:56 AM
Hmm maybe you guys should spend more time with modo then just a cursory trial. Im using it in production already and it rocks on many levels and surpasses LW in many ways... although it does not replace LW by any means.

Originally Posted by ingo
The renderer doesn't convince me, it looks like C4D's renderer, too cg'ish.


Hahaha, wow. talk about hurting your own credibility with a stupid statement like that...

Stooch
06-12-2006, 10:04 AM
Momo has nothing really new, just a different "workflow". The shadertree is nice for simple objects, but for archviz with often more than 50 materials and/or objects it gets confusing with all that masks and layers. I hope some people in the Luxo gallery post some renderspecs with the pictures so one gets a comparsion.

So lets go back to Bryce and make some nice images just out of the box ;)

the whole point in modo is that you dont NEED 50 different surfaces. you can mask attributes and apply things to the entire higherarchy and dont be afraid to group things with layer groups! it ends up being very clean and efficient with a little practice...

Stooch
06-12-2006, 11:00 AM
I know that Captain...
But, as a owner of an old CANON T-90, less old EOS 600, and recent EOS 20D, and a great bunch of Canon lenses it is not "natural" for lens focal...
In LW this setting is displayed in mm!

what a frivolous complaint.... how hard is it to multiply by 10??? of all the gripes....

frantbk
06-12-2006, 11:27 AM
Nobody doubts that, but the cores are still the same. and that is where the bulk of processing takes place. So, looking at the cores the P4s and Xeons _are_ the same (since they all use the same Netburst cores), and the Athlon64s, Opterons and Sempron64s are the same as well.
The only differences beeing the support for different instruction sets, such as the addition of SSE3 - but those tend to come with later core revisions, not with specific family members (i.e. all 90nm AMD cores, except for the Semprons, support SSE3, while even an Opteron at 130nm doesn't).

Cheers,
Mike

This is a silly waste of my time. It is the same silly waste of time that happens at the Lux site. The conversation that PHil Larwson and I had has nothing to do with this silly noise about if you take away the FSB and the memory, and the FPU at the core they are the same.

The question I asked of Phil was and is squarely centered in the real world with people using chips under real world condition. You and the other guy have gone off into :screwy: land about things that have no bearing on real world conditions. You and the other guy have too much time on your hands so go back to the Lux site and talk those people over there about all this silly noise. I'm only concerned with real world information about modo and the cpu's that are not having trouble with problem and those cpu's that are having problems with modo under real world conditions.

RedBull
06-12-2006, 02:47 PM
Hmm maybe you guys should spend more time with modo then just a cursory trial. Im using it in production already and it rocks on many levels and surpasses LW in many ways... although it does not replace LW by any means.

I don't think many intelligent people have claimed anything bad about Modo
But there is no way, Modo201 is production ready....

Maybe you are a lucky one Stooch, but the amount of crashes, and bugs
makes 201 totally unsuitable for serious production.
Maybe we have different ideas of how solid production level tools should be.

I believe it's an excellent tool, with many outstanding qualities
and hopefully will be production ready soon but as is, there is no way i'm doing any serious productions in Modo is really suitable...

In a mission critical situation, i'll take LW over Modo at the moment thanks.

And to quote your own words on the Lux forums:
"oh it crashes allright..."

Yes it does..... A lot, some more than others.
But to claim this is production ready is absolute crap in my opinion....
So while i'd like to spend more time with Modo, until it does not want to crash every 30 seconds, i'll be sticking with XSI and LW for production sensitive tasks.

These are tools, that i use everyday with less than 10% of the problems i have in Modo. There is no doubt that 201 is a good start, but it really needs to be far more stable...

And yes the Lighting quality is superb, it's Maxwell quality, at uber fast rendertimes.

But plenty of people are crashing, on Mac and PC.....

And there are already plenty of known bugs, and issues, and developers
have already admitted to a few changes for 202, that will help.

Cool yes, production not me.....

RedBull
06-12-2006, 03:02 PM
This is a silly waste of my time.

Feel free not to waste our time then.
IMO, Opterons are not as stable as the X2 series, not the chips themselves
but due to a less mature chipset on Opterons.

They sell half as many, and as far as i'm aware only 2 mainboard manufactures
make Opteron chipsets and they are DFI and Tyan...

With X2 Chipsets, ASUS, Abit, Gigabyte and a million more companies produce these boards, which means problems are found and fixed much more quickly.

After seeing so many people with problems with Tyan boards,
i believe Opterons to be slightly more problematic than a more consumer tested X2 chipset from either VIA or Nforce4.

NO that doesn't mean Opterons are bad, or faulty or problematic...
Just likely to have a few more issues than the X2 based counterpart.

Captain Obvious
06-12-2006, 03:11 PM
Okay, frankb, I'm gonna say this in a very simple manner:

The Xeon and Pentium 4 are the same CPU, insofar that a task at which the Xeon fails, the Pentium 4 will as well (and the other way around; something the Pentium 4 fails at, the Xeon will also fail at). The same thing holds true with Opterons and Athlon64s. The differences between an Athlon64 and an Opteron are minimal. Mostly, it's just the cache size and how many interconnects it has. Obviously, the changed cash sizes will often make a difference, but it is still important to remember that the core is the same, because it means that you CANNOT specifically optimize code for the Opterons and Xeons, yet leave out the Pentium 4s and Athlon64s. Optimize for the Xeons, and the Pentium 4s will see a speed-up as well.

If you want real-life test results to support this, just look at Vertexmonkey. Obviously, you'll find Opterons and G5s on the top pretty much all the time, but this is for a very simple reason: they're the most common quad-core machines available. Four Opteron or G5 cores are going to outperform two cores of pretty much any CPU. This is the ONLY reason you find them at the top. If there were four-way Athlon64 systems, they'd perform just as well as the Opterons, for the most part.

This part, specifically, annoyed me:

Yes and also the way it controls memory and the FPU is modified for graphical calculations and many other difference.
This is just plain nonsense. The FPU in the Opteron is exactly the same as the FPU in the Athlon64. It is not modified in any way, what-so-ever. I have no idea how you got the idea that it was.




Now, back to "the real world":

The question I asked of Phil was and is squarely centered in the real world with people using chips under real world condition. You and the other guy have gone off into land about things that have no bearing on real world conditions. You and the other guy have too much time on your hands so go back to the Lux site and talk those people over there about all this silly noise. I'm only concerned with real world information about modo and the cpu's that are not having trouble with problem and those cpu's that are having problems with modo under real world conditions.
This is where you're barking up the wrong tree: It's not people with specific CPUs who have issues. Mostly, it's people with certain GPUs. So far, I haven't heard of any CPU-specific bugs in modo.




And when it comes to the stability of modo, it's fairly solid on my Power Mac. It's about as stable as Photoshop, I think, and that's pretty good. Compared to LW8.2, it's a whole other world. I can actually save scenes without worrying if it will crash! :O

RedBull
06-12-2006, 11:13 PM
The FPU in the Opteron is exactly the same as the FPU in the Athlon64. It is not modified in any way, what-so-ever. I have no idea how you got the idea that it was.

Not disagreeing on the FPU, but there are differences in the Memory controller and the amount of HTU on Opterons and X2's as far as i'm aware..

Captain Obvious
06-13-2006, 03:38 AM
Not disagreeing on the FPU, but there are differences in the Memory controller and the amount of HTU on Opterons and X2's as far as i'm aware..
Yes, but it does not invalidade my point.

frantbk
06-13-2006, 11:01 AM
Piff this has nothing to do with the conversaton Phil and I had. Redbull is the only one that is addressing that conversation. The rest of this is the same stuff from the Lux site. Feel free to knock yourselves out on the subject, but this doesn't interest me and most of it has little bearing on modo's problems. Point me to the Xeon & Operton's uisers that are having trouble with modo and I'll listen to the discussion.

Captain Obvious
06-13-2006, 01:51 PM
Piff this has nothing to do with the conversaton Phil and I had. Redbull is the only one that is addressing that conversation. The rest of this is the same stuff from the Lux site. Feel free to knock yourselves out on the subject, but this doesn't interest me and most of it has little bearing on modo's problems. Point me to the Xeon & Operton's uisers that are having trouble with modo and I'll listen to the discussion.
You posted the following:

Do you know anyone using Xeon's or Operton's and if you do, have they had less problems then the mid-range chips with the program over all.
The answer to this question is NO. Opteron and Xeon users do NOT have less issues than Athlon64, Pentium 4 or Core Duo users.

frantbk
06-13-2006, 02:06 PM
Captain Obvious, do you know of any Opteron, or Xeon users posting problems with modo. If you are not seeing any with a Xeon, or Opteron posting about problems with modo, but you see Athlon64 and FX series and P4 users posting about their problems. Then it can be said that the Opteron and Xeon's are not having the same problems. You seem to have extra time on your hands, so go over to the Lux site and count up all the different CPU's and see how many Opteron and Xeon's are there. If there isn't any or the number is less then the others then that last statement is pretty weak.

Captain Obvious
06-13-2006, 03:13 PM
Captain Obvious, do you know of any Opteron, or Xeon users posting problems with modo.
Yes, I've seen "pro machine" users report issues with 201, including Opterons, Xeons and G5s.

And no, I will not actually sit and count each and every problem thread. You do that, instead. I've better things to do, like sitting in the dark or something (darn fever headaches).

frantbk
06-13-2006, 03:40 PM
Captain Obvious I made a quick cruise over to the Lux site and foundl only one xeon user haivng a problem with modo's paint tools. You must be thinking of all the G5 users with modo problems. I'll search later on the Opterons. I don't think the Lux site is supporting your statement that all the cpu's are the same.

Captain Obvious
06-13-2006, 04:12 PM
The idea that modo is more stable with Opterons and Xeons than with Pentiums or Athlons is downright preposterous, and it shows you have no knowledge what-so-ever about how CPUs work. The fact that you think the type of CPU has a significant impact on software bugs also goes to show you have a lot to learn.

The fact that you see more Athlon owners having problems is simply that there are people who have Athlons, what with them being cheap and the X2s kicking ***. It does NOT mean that the Athlons are less reliable.

frantbk
06-14-2006, 06:37 AM
The idea that modo is more stable with Opterons and Xeons than with Pentiums or Athlons is downright preposterous, and it shows you have no knowledge what-so-ever about how CPUs work. The fact that you think the type of CPU has a significant impact on software bugs also goes to show you have a lot to learn.

The fact that you see more Athlon owners having problems is simply that there are people who have Athlons, what with them being cheap and the X2s kicking ***. It does NOT mean that the Athlons are less reliable.

Seeing that I've spent my time as a hardware break/fix tech and you have not do you understand what this posting does to your standing as someone to trust about the releationship between hardware and software? :screwy: :screwy: :screwy:

Your whole argument that the CPU's are the same, that the handling of the memory, FPU, chipset has nothing to do with how well the program interacts with the software. :screwy: is what the postings by you and others are who don't understand that 3D apps are designed differently and modo has been designed to take advantage of the higherend CPUs and the higherend video cards. The fact that you and some of the others don't understand that makes talking to you about these issue :screwy: .

Lightwolf
06-14-2006, 06:47 AM
Seeing that I've spent my time as a hardware break/fix tech and you have not ...
Well, I have, and I still do, and I actually agree with his post.

is what the postings by you and others are who don't understand that 3D apps are designed differently and modo has been designed to take advantage of the higherend CPUs and the higherend video cards.
GPU, yes, CPU, no. So, what exactly are the differences - as far as coding is concerned - to target a "higher end" CPU? I'd love to know since I do code as well...
And does that mean that new software won't run as well on what used to be a "high-end" CPU two years ago?

Cheers,
Mike

Captain Obvious
06-14-2006, 07:26 AM
Oh, god... "Frankbk," "fbk"... I should've known it was you.


Look, the only thing I ever said was that if code performs poorly or is unstable on a "consumer CPU," it will display the SAME EXACT BEHAVIOUR on a "pro CPU." The only thing that can make a significant difference is probably the chipset, but there are plenty of chipsets for high-end CPUs that suck, and plenty of chipsets for lower-end CPUs that kick ***.



And, as mr Wolf said, how do you target a high-end CPU, specifically? Since you're so experienced, you should know.




Edit:
This, especially, annoyed me:

Your whole argument that the CPU's are the same, that the handling of the memory, FPU, chipset has nothing to do with how well the program interacts with the software.
How many times are you going to force me to say this? The FPU is exactly the same. The only difference between, for example, the Opteron and the Athlon64, is the communications. The actual core (this includes the FPU) is the same.

frantbk
06-14-2006, 12:16 PM
Not only are you slow on the uptake of fbk and frantbk being the same person and you're slow on the difference of highend system, CPU and all and 3D software, but then again you're a modo lover so what level of expectation should I have?
Seeing that I'm telling you there is a difference a reasonable person would have by now used the contact us function at Intel/AMD and asked the question to the people that make the chips if there is a difference.

You on the other hand still think I'm going to listen to a 21 year old who has no hardware break/fix background on the differences of highend systems vs. office/web/games machines. That is what is so laughable about you and the others from the Lux site.

THe fact that you are annoyed is a clue to your misplaced pride as a PC person and a hardware guru.

Paul Lara
06-14-2006, 12:27 PM
MODERATOR NOTICE

Due to the inability of some people to avoid personal attacks, this agitated thread has now been closed.

MOVE ALONG.