PDA

View Full Version : I think you'll like them



Chilton
08-09-2006, 08:08 PM
Hi,

Just so you know, the Universal Binary of LightWave absolutely screams on the new monster Intel machines. I've been using them most of today, and... WOW. They're fast.

Leopard's not too shabby either. They did some things in the debug tools that will greatly simplify my life, especially where finding and fixing bugs in LightWave are concerned.

-Chilton

kfinla
08-09-2006, 08:33 PM
awesome news!

JeffRutan
08-09-2006, 11:38 PM
GREAT NEWS!
Can I get a direct email when this is ready for release?
I am seriously considering buying one of these machines, but it would be nice to know that all my software will run on it soon.
Thanks,
-Jeff

sjon
08-09-2006, 11:46 PM
Chilton, if you need another IntelMac to test it on, well, I just happen to have one here on my desk that could be made available, heh-heh. I really want to try that UB LW on it, if you get my drift. I've been running LW 9 (ßeta 1 through 4 gazillion) and final release on my Quad G5 (PPC). I could even compare the two (IntelMac Duo Core 2.16 GHz).

Sjon

Kuzey
08-10-2006, 06:36 AM
Hi,

Just so you know, the Universal Binary of LightWave absolutely screams on the new monster Intel machines. I've been using them most of today, and... WOW. They're fast.

Leopard's not too shabby either. They did some things in the debug tools that will greatly simplify my life, especially where finding and fixing bugs in LightWave are concerned.

-Chilton


Coolness!!!!

How's the OpenGl in LW UB looking on those Macs and is there a difference with the other Macs ?

Kuzey

BazC
08-10-2006, 07:00 AM
Coolness!!!!

How's the OpenGl in LW UB looking on those Macs and is there a difference with the other Macs ?

Kuzey

Kuzey, from what I've heard OGL was finally sorted out in the last release of OS10.4 (Tiger? I get confused with all these flippin' cats!) apparently it has similar performance to WIndows now. I'm still on 10.3.9 so I'm not talking from personal experience here!

I'd be interested to know how OGL 2 is in Leopard though, is it fully implemented? Will the advanced OGL features of LW work on Macs now?

Kuzey
08-10-2006, 08:02 AM
I was thinking in terms of any difference in performance between the UB and non UB versions of LW9. I remember somewhere someone said it will be improved greatly once the move to Xcode is complete...but yes, any news on OGL2 would be great as well :D

Actually...any news on any feature/improvements would be so cool, again in general terms as to not say toooooooo much :beerchug:

Kuzey

BazC
08-10-2006, 08:04 AM
Ah I see what you mean, beg your pardon! :D

Kuzey
08-10-2006, 08:19 AM
No problem...my mind kinda shoots off in different directions anyway :D


But you have sparked my imagination, I would love to know how LW9UB works on Leopard V Tiger. I know the LW9UB will be different by the time Leopard ships but it would be cool to know just the same :hey:

And while I'm at it :D

Chilton, you don't have an advanced version of LW64UB with you...do you?

:beerchug:

Kuzey

Chilton
08-10-2006, 08:25 AM
Hi,

The biggest problem that I forsee is that OpenGL in Rosetta has some issues that I have not figured out yet. So the sooner we can get this UB version out the door, the better.

Obviously ;-)

Leopard is buggy as heck right now, but it is pre-release software, so I can give them a bit of slack.

Going from my PowerBook to one of those new 64 bit machines makes me feel absolutely archaic. And that's a good thing--it's been a long time since I felt this way about Apple's hardware offerings from update to update.

-Chilton

Chilton
08-10-2006, 08:27 AM
Chilton, you don't have an advanced version of LW64UB with you...do you?



No, unfortunately we have some tinkering under the hood to do still before we're there.*

-Chilton

Kuzey
08-10-2006, 08:33 AM
It was worth the try :D

Kuzey

Chilton
08-10-2006, 08:42 AM
Well, it's definitely something being looked into! And the changes we'll need to make may give us other performance benefits as well.

-Chilton

JeffRutan
08-10-2006, 09:31 AM
Remember that Universal Binary means that the code runs on Intel AS WELL AS PowerPC. From the development path that Chilton described in an earlier thread, that involves upgrading all of the Mac code to the modern platform first. This should result in dramatically better performance for the PowerPC version as well as ultimately the Intel version too.

As for Advanced OpenGL support, one only has to look at modo 202 to see that it is not Apple’s fault that LightWave still has serious performance and other OpenGL problems when running on the Mac. Even modo 103 performs buttery smooth and pretty much in parity with their Windows version (probably at least 100x faster than LW9 on the Mac with large sub-d models). The latest versions of modo have an Advanced OpenGL display option that performs flawlessly on the Mac with relatively recent video cards.

-Jeff

Chilton
08-10-2006, 11:14 AM
As for Advanced OpenGL support, one only has to look at modo 202 to see that it is not Apple’s fault that LightWave still has serious performance and other OpenGL problems when running on the Mac. Even modo 103 performs buttery smooth and pretty much in parity with their Windows version (probably at least 100x faster than LW9 on the Mac with large sub-d models). The latest versions of modo have an Advanced OpenGL display option that performs flawlessly on the Mac with relatively recent video cards.


100x? Ouch!

Well, the next version should address that to some degree. I'm not going to say we'll be 100x faster than the current 9.0 version, but it should definitely be *faster*.

-Chilton

eidetiken
08-10-2006, 11:19 AM
Rosetta doesn't handle OpenGL very well and there are some C and C++ syntax issues that have to be dealt with when compiling on gcc4, verses older versions of gcc. gcc4 is a lot stricter than earlier versions and that's where a lot of my OpenGL problems stem from. XCode3 has better debugging tools than XCode 2 did, which is a big help, but I'm better at Object-C or Cocoa than I am at C or C++.

Chilton are we going to get to Beta test the UB version... in the Beta forum?

How's that? :)

Chilton
08-10-2006, 11:23 AM
Hi Eidetiken,

I don't know if we'll do the UB in the beta forum, or just call it 9.1 and ship it as soon as we can get it to compile.

** I kid. **

But I don't know what our position will be regarding beta testing of the UB version at this point.

-Chilton (not Clinton, though we appear to have similar aspirations)

paul summers
08-10-2006, 11:38 AM
Hi Chilton

What about all the plug-ins that ship with with LW 9
do you have to compile all of them in X-code ?

and what about FPRIME AND G2 , are you working with Worley Labs
so there plug-ins will run on day one.:thumbsup:


-Paul

JeffRutan
08-10-2006, 11:57 AM
LWCAD too!
-Jeff

Chilton
08-10-2006, 12:41 PM
Hi guys,

First the UB version needs to work right. Older CFM style plug-ins could still work, but only on PPC hardware. Although I know everyone would like to run these older plug-ins, it might require more effort than it's worth. And keep in mind that using CFM plug-ins will preclude you from running them as 64-bit apps on PPC G5s, where the entire PictureData system is absent.*

At some point very soon, we'll be working on the SDK part. At that point, I'm sure we'll be in touch with Worley labs, and will also be letting everyone know about our specific plans here.

-Chilton

jeremyhardin
08-11-2006, 11:51 AM
But I don't know what our position will be regarding beta testing of the UB version at this point.

Really? I had assumed that the UB version would be part of the new point release coming soon. I had also been told that the afforementioned point release would be released to Open Beta. I do hope that the Open Beta team get to look at it first. :D

Chilton
08-11-2006, 12:11 PM
Hi Jeremy,

It will be a dot release. I'm not sure if it will be the very next one hough. A decision about this has not been made. The simple reason is that the UB version needs more testing, and is still not ready. However, all those crash logs I've been asking people to send me are helping nail down other bugs.*

I'd love to wait until the UB version is ready to ship, mainly because that would be one awesome dot version update. However, many of these bugs are affecting our users right now. So it might be in the best interests of our users if they received the bug fix release first.*

Right now I really don't know what our specific plans are. We're proceeding on the UB version at an incredible rate right now, but ultimately, our release plans are not up to me.

-Chilton

jeremyhardin
08-11-2006, 12:18 PM
Fair enough. Thanks for being forthcoming. :thumbsup: