PDA

View Full Version : Lightwave 64 bit



Tony3d
06-17-2006, 06:15 AM
Will Lightwave v9 be 64 bit, or will the Mac simply be left out again?

Lightwolf
06-17-2006, 07:05 AM
Will Lightwave v9 be 64 bit, or will the Mac simply be left out again?
Two things would need to happen for that:

- NT would need to finish their XCode version of LW
- Apple would need to finish their complete 64bit OS, since currently you can't mix a GUI and 64bit code.

Cheers,
Mike

BazC
06-17-2006, 07:06 AM
It's not a question of Macs being left out. OSX is not fully 64bit, when it is Newtek will create a 64bit version for OSX. To the best of my knowledge there are NO 64bit 3d apps for OSX (or indeed any apps with a GUI)

..and no LW9 for OSX will not be 64bit.

In my opinion a Universal Binary version is MUCH more important and that's coming later this year :D

Whoops, cross posted with you there Lightwolf!

LSlugger
06-17-2006, 11:15 AM
Porting to Intel is clearly more pressing than going 64 bit. However, I disagree that it is infeasible to develop a 64-bit version of LightWave for the Mac. I totally understand the reasons not to:


Intel is still stuck in 32-bit land
64-bit code is slower than 32-bit on PowerPC
only the PowerMac G5 can even hold enough memory to take advantage of a 64-bit LW
the lack of a 64-bit GUI complicates the development of a 64-bit app.
limited resources (does NewTek even have a full-time Mac programmer?)
the Mac struggles with platform parity as it is, so you can imagine what a ghetto 64-bit Mac would be

However, let's say, for the sake of argument, that OS X 10.5 supports 64-bit Intel Macs, but still with a 32-bit GUI. 64-bit code can actually be faster on Intel, because the AMD64 architecture has eight more general-purpose registers than IA32. This means there would actually be a point to using a 64-bit LW on a system with less than 4 GB of RAM. (Upgrade your Mac mini with 10.5 and a Core 2 Duo, and you'll probably have the world's smallest 64-bit workstation.)

As for the 32-bit GUI, LW already has a command-line renderer. Simply porting that may be enough to keep LW relevant to the shops that need 64 bit.

In my mind, platform parity is the most compelling reason not to go 64 bit at this time. I haven't seen NewTek do anything to support, let alone promote, the Linux renderer. Perhaps another angle is to enhance LScript, so that you can perform more sophisticated tasks without resorting to natively-compiled plugins.

djlithium
06-17-2006, 10:55 PM
LWSN is 64bit on PC as of 8.5. As I work with a fully 64bit cpu/OS environment at BSG-75VFX when we made the switch (mid way in a show I might add) upto both 64bit XP and 64bit LW 8.5 we immediately realized the benefit. Machines stopped paging to disc even though each box had 4GB of ram (at the time) as they did often with XP32 and 32bit LW 8.3 when we loaded massive scenes and we saw a major decrease in render times on the order of about 35% simply because the boxes were able to use all the ram they had in the systems. Now that LW9 has multi-threading correctly sorted for LWSN, plus the increase of the render speed alone, LW9 on 64bit machines with 4 or more GB of ram is going to be very hard to beat. As for the linux renderer, well its long been known that the linux rendering end of things is no faster than on windows. The only advantage there is the cost of the OS over another. However I don't think NewTek ships a linux geek with every copy of Lightwave and frankly linux for intergration into a artist work environment is a nightmare. Costs up front for windowsXP based farms might be higher but the long term savings from having to have on staff a linux system admin to deal with the bogus that comes up on Linux all the time (yes I do know what I am talking about) compared to windows network management which most people can handle on their own makes up for it easily.

eblu
06-20-2006, 10:27 AM
LWSN is 64bit on PC as of 8.5. As I work with a fully 64bit cpu/OS environment at BSG-75VFX when we made the switch (mid way in a show I might add) upto both 64bit XP and 64bit LW 8.5 we immediately realized the benefit. Machines stopped paging to disc even though each box had 4GB of ram (at the time) as they did often with XP32 and 32bit LW 8.3 when we loaded massive scenes and we saw a major decrease in render times on the order of about 35% simply because the boxes were able to use all the ram they had in the systems. Now that LW9 has multi-threading correctly sorted for LWSN, plus the increase of the render speed alone, LW9 on 64bit machines with 4 or more GB of ram is going to be very hard to beat. As for the linux renderer, well its long been known that the linux rendering end of things is no faster than on windows. The only advantage there is the cost of the OS over another. However I don't think NewTek ships a linux geek with every copy of Lightwave and frankly linux for intergration into a artist work environment is a nightmare. Costs up front for windowsXP based farms might be higher but the long term savings from having to have on staff a linux system admin to deal with the bogus that comes up on Linux all the time (yes I do know what I am talking about) compared to windows network management which most people can handle on their own makes up for it easily.


interesting. I'm sure you have a point ;)
you seem to be selling the benefits of 64 bit LW. Sorry man, you're preaching to the choir there. Then you move on to kinda discredit Linux Screamernet. okaaayyyy I'll bite, what does that have to do with 64 bit mac LW?

I'm sure I speak for the mac user base, when i say: yeah, we'd LOVE to have a 64 bit Lightwave, but we'd also Love an Intel version, an Xcode version, and a lot of the glitches cleaned up. I've noticed that for the most part, the mac LW community is Very aware of the hurdles LW has yet to climb, and 64 bit while nice is near the bottom of the overall wish list. the key, and the number 1 need is the Xcode version. Its what let "other" developers port their application to Intel in 10 minutes.

And I think you're wrong about the viability of the Linux Version. I'm Very glad they have it, not because I run linux (i don't)... but because it can be ported to the mac, and get on an OS that has everything linux Lacks, plus the unix pedigree, and the potential for a 64 bit Intel processor. Its Much easier than trying to port the hobbled version they have on the mac right now (it sure would be nice to have a real, honest-to-god unix based renderer). The linux renderer is Very valuable Intellectual property, and I'd like to see it kept up, if not for the mac version, then at least for the options it represents. a 1000 machine renderfarm is Much cheaper as a Linux renderfarm than a Windows renderfarm.

djlithium
06-20-2006, 01:05 PM
The linux renderer is Very valuable Intellectual property, and I'd like to see it kept up, if not for the mac version, then at least for the options it represents. a 1000 machine renderfarm is Much cheaper as a Linux renderfarm than a Windows renderfarm.

BULL! You obviously didn't read my post in full.

The costs of having a full time linux geek squad to run a farm of that size over a windows farm is MUCH higher. I run our entire farm here which is well over 300ghz of CPU power in 64bit XP from a single box, and I also do shots on regular basis while ensuring everyone else is able to make their shots and deadlines. If this was a linux farm... none of us would have jobs. I used to watch linux geeks run around with their heads cut off for hours trying to solve problems from samba drives falling off the network to spending entire shifts searching for drivers for network chipsets and cards - only after saying windows sucks. Get real.
If you have been there, and actually been in the trenches with a farm of any real size having to keep shots on track for deadlines that are immovable... you would completely agree with me. I don't have time for some linux twit or a company that pisses away its time and R&D money on linux to satisfy a bunch of anti MS groups who can't do basic math or accounting.

LSlugger
06-21-2006, 08:21 AM
BULL! You obviously didn't read my post in full.

Or maybe he just has a different opinion. At any rate, comparing the Windows and Linux TCO is pretty far off topic in a Mac forum. Suffice to say that your experience does not match mine. I'm glad you've found a solution that works for you.


I'm Very glad they have it, not because I run linux (i don't)... but because it can be ported to the mac

While it's possible that the Linux renderer could be ported to OS X, I'm not sure how much that would help. It's true that LWSN is largely freed from GUI dependencies, but you still want it to be compatible with plugins; it remains to be seen how plugins are handled in the Mach-O version (9.5?).

Chilton
06-21-2006, 10:01 PM
Porting to Intel is clearly more pressing than going 64 bit. However, I disagree that it is infeasible to develop a 64-bit version of LightWave for the Mac. I totally understand the reasons not to:


limited resources (does NewTek even have a full-time Mac programmer?)



I can't answer the other questions, as I'm sure the details of NewTek's future plans are something of a secret. But yes, NewTek does have a full-time Mac programmer.

-Chilton