PDA

View Full Version : What do you expect?



Pages : [1] 2

Chilton
08-20-2006, 07:36 AM
Hi,

As the title implies, I would like to know what you, our faithful user, expect in forthcoming versions of LightWave. In the past, we know that our Mac offerings have been less than stellar. We at NewTek have an opportunity to change that now, and I think we are.

But my yardstick for progress is probably slightly different than yours. So here's your chance--tell me what it is you expect from us. Don't hold back!

-Chilton

thomasdrucker
08-20-2006, 08:04 AM
Hi Chilton,

for me two mac related issues are most important:
1. the Hub. I constantly switch back and forth, but when one of the apps crash I have to reboot to get the Hub working again.
2. Mac support for plugins. From one of your previous posts I got that the UB version will be a help. Will that also work on non-Intel machines?

btw, I really apreciate the energy you put into this forum and I'm sure a lot of mac users who've become frustrated over the last few years are getting the feeling things are about to change for the better.

so... cheers!

Thomas

dsol
08-20-2006, 08:09 AM
If NT really wants to get OSX users feeling warm and fuzzy towards them, It'd be nice to see some of the cooler (and unique) features of OSX get some specific support in LW. Support for GPU acceleration via CoreImage in some of the Image processing plugins might be a nice one. And in the long term, being able to export LW scenes to Core Animation format might be nice (though I admit I know very little about CA at this point).

In the short term though, putting in network render support via Qmaster would be an awesome step. In fact that would be my number 1 mac-specific feature to add :)

eidetiken
08-20-2006, 08:39 AM
For those of us that don't have the other high priced apps like Shake and all that, maybe some direct export to iMovie and GarageBand so we can make little podcast or something.

Native DEM landscape file support would be nice. There are several Windows only plugins that work for this but haven't found any that work on the Mac.

Better UV tools.
Better Animation tools.
Better OpenGL support.
A way to program the mouse. Have the wheel zoom in and out, or whatever you want.
The UB to put in the Beta section so we can all enjoy finding and squashing bugs :)

The don't hold back part:
Intergrated FPrime, or turn Viper into one.
Intergrated Hair (with styling) and 3D paint (complete with displacement mapping). Hmmm, while we're at it, how about intergrated Mimic or FaceRobot?

That's a start.

Chilton
08-20-2006, 08:47 AM
Hi Thomas,


Hi Chilton,

for me two mac related issues are most important:
1. the Hub. I constantly switch back and forth, but when one of the apps crash I have to reboot to get the Hub working again.

Noted :thumbsup:



2. Mac support for plugins. From one of your previous posts I got that the UB version will be a help. Will that also work on non-Intel machines?

My suspicion is that there will be two main benefits. First, the Intel Macs are drawing in traditionally PC only developers, so I hope the advent of a Universal Binary version of LW will appeal to them. That would mean UB plug-ins. Those would work on PPC Macs as well.

Secondly, Intel native issues (endianness, SSE) will mean it's easier to port hardware specific code to the Mac. This would mainly benefit Intel Mac users.

So it's a mixed pot. But I will definitely help anyone who wants to bring their Windows plug-ins to the Mac version of LightWave.


btw, I really apreciate the energy you put into this forum and I'm sure a lot of mac users who've become frustrated over the last few years are getting the feeling things are about to change for the better.
Thomas

Thank you! With the feedback here, I'm hoping to figure out exactly what it is we need to deliver. I realize I'm setting the bar pretty high, but where's the fun in doing something if you're not going to do it big?

-Chilton
(who realizes he's all hat & no horse, until the UB version ships)

Chilton
08-20-2006, 08:56 AM
Hi dsol,


If NT really wants to get OSX users feeling warm and fuzzy towards them, It'd be nice to see some of the cooler (and unique) features of OSX get some specific support in LW.

Will do.


Support for GPU acceleration via CoreImage in some of the Image processing plugins might be a nice one.

That's something I'm definitely considering. It will likely not be in the first release of the UB version, unless we hold off the UB version a bit longer, but it is something I plan at some point. It's an architectural issue at this point, more than anything else.


And in the long term, being able to export LW scenes to Core Animation format might be nice (though I admit I know very little about CA at this point).


I am not allowed to report on any technologies or sessions I may or may not have attended at WWDC, nor make any claims regarding how much they rock. So I am frightened and confused by this discussion ;-)



In the short term though, putting in network render support via Qmaster would be an awesome step. In fact that would be my number 1 mac-specific feature to add :)

I'm glad I asked, then! Qmaster is now on the list. Can't promise anything there, but I'll definitely look into it.

-Chilton

eblu
08-20-2006, 09:00 AM
Hi,

As the title implies, I would like to know what you, our faithful user, expect in forthcoming versions of LightWave. In the past, we know that our Mac offerings have been less than stellar. We at NewTek have an opportunity to change that now, and I think we are.

But my yardstick for progress is probably slightly different than yours. So here's your chance--tell me what it is you expect from us. Don't hold back!

-Chilton

hmm... I think Lightwave as a whole suffers from "feature-itis" features are added over fixing bugs, or fixing design problems. This is a bad way to work and has lead Lightwave to where its been the last few upgrades. dedicate to getting the right Kind of support in the core of the app, over adding new features (which are only marginally helpful as they are usually encumbered with bugs.) This means... NO features until LW is in good shape.
Then stop trying to reinvent the wheel. The hub is atrocious, and as so makes a great example. Both platforms (mac + Windows) have excellent inter-application communication support. They have for YEARS, theres no reason to develop your own. in a lot of critical areas for lightwave, there are off the shelf tools (which you already have access to, or are free) that could make your job easier, in areas that are Not central to the app. and by developing your own solution, you make your products less compatible with the rest of the world. Newtek has a history of ignoring the kinds of tools that could make life easier for everybody, to the dismay of its Mac LW users. Do great 3-d and let others do the clerical work thats bogging you down.
On the mac side Lightwave has slowly fallen behind in the technology game. they were first to carbon, which was a joy, btw. then they missed every hint and opportunity to move to projectBuilder/Xcode, citing a lack of need, in the face of mounting and obvious warning signs. it missed the opportunity to go 64 bit. regardless of the difficulty and value of such a move... LW couldn't get there if it made sense, it was boxed in by poor foresight. Then, when the announcement of pending intel chips came through, Lightwave was already playing catchup, and it was obvious that there was a lot of work to do before LW could ever hope to get on the MacTel platform. Better foresight, more awareness of whats coming down the pipe.

Lightwave is Not a mac program, it runs on the mac, and it runs better everyday, but it doesn't work well with others, and Newtek has great difficulty understanding the importance of almost every announcement that comes out of Cupertino. I expect Newtek to sit up, and get excited about Intel, about 64 bit OS, about XCode, about AppleScript, about Core Animation, about the neat things in the OS that Can't necessarily help you with LW, yet. I expect LW to become the premiere Mac 3-d application, based on its Mac User experience, its Robustness, and its industrial tool set.

yeah, I know its a lot. think of it as a wish list.
-eblu

Chilton
08-20-2006, 09:02 AM
For those of us that don't have the other high priced apps like Shake and all that, maybe some direct export to iMovie and GarageBand so we can make little podcast or something.
Noted.


Native DEM landscape file support would be nice. There are several Windows only plugins that work for this but haven't found any that work on the Mac.


Interesting.



Better UV tools.
Better Animation tools.
Better OpenGL support.

Better than what is in LightWave now, or are you saying that the Mac version doesn't do this as well as the PC version of LW?



A way to program the mouse. Have the wheel zoom in and out, or whatever you want.

Noted.


The UB to put in the Beta section so we can all enjoy finding and squashing bugs :)

I think we're still in 'infestation' phase right now. Granted, we could release it, act like the problems don't exist, and release a patch a month from now, but aside from the obvious attention-whoring that would create, I don't think it would be fair to our users.



The don't hold back part:
Intergrated FPrime, or turn Viper into one.
Intergrated Hair (with styling) and 3D paint (complete with displacement mapping). Hmmm, while we're at it, how about intergrated Mimic or FaceRobot?

Noted.



That's a start.

I still have a few hours left in the weekend. I'll see what I can do ;-)

-Chilton

Chilton
08-20-2006, 09:17 AM
hmm... I think Lightwave as a whole suffers from "feature-itis" features are added over fixing bugs, or fixing design problems. This is a bad way to work and has lead Lightwave to where its been the last few upgrades. dedicate to getting the right Kind of support in the core of the app, over adding new features (which are only marginally helpful as they are usually encumbered with bugs.) This means... NO features until LW is in good shape.

Bug fixing is my #1 priority. But there are also some basic missing features LW could stand to have, which would make testing a tad bit easier. The thing is, bug fixing is relatively easy. But in some cases, it would make little sense to fix a bug in this or that part of the engine, if our users would really prefer it was just thrown out entirely.


Then stop trying to reinvent the wheel. The hub is atrocious, and as so makes a great example. Both platforms (mac + Windows) have excellent inter-application communication support. They have for YEARS, theres no reason to develop your own. in a lot of critical areas for lightwave, there are off the shelf tools (which you already have access to, or are free) that could make your job easier, in areas that are Not central to the app. and by developing your own solution, you make your products less compatible with the rest of the world. Newtek has a history of ignoring the kinds of tools that could make life easier for everybody, to the dismay of its Mac LW users. Do great 3-d and let others do the clerical work thats bogging you down.


I guess you wouldn't be interested in our custom LightWave Operating System, then?


On the Mac side, Lightwave has slowly fallen behind in the technology game. they were first to carbon, which was a joy, btw. then they missed every hint and opportunity to move to projectBuilder/Xcode, citing a lack of need, in the face of mounting and obvious warning signs. it missed the opportunity to go 64 bit. regardless of the difficulty and value of such a move... LW couldn't get there if it made sense, it was boxed in by poor foresight. Then, when the announcement of pending intel chips came through, Lightwave was already playing catchup, and it was obvious that there was a lot of work to do before LW could ever hope to get on the MacTel platform. Better foresight, more awareness of whats coming down the pipe.


Believe me, I know. But it's much better now, and will continue to improve.


Lightwave is Not a mac program, it runs on the mac, and it runs better everyday, but it doesn't work well with others, and Newtek has great difficulty understanding the importance of almost every announcement that comes out of Cupertino. I expect Newtek to sit up, and get excited about Intel, about 64 bit OS, about XCode, about AppleScript, about Core Animation, about the neat things in the OS that Can't necessarily help you with LW, yet. I expect LW to become the premiere Mac 3-d application, based on its Mac User experience, its Robustness, and its industrial tool set.


What about "NO features until LW is in good shape" ? ;-)

I cannot discuss technologies and/or things I've seen or not seen at WWDC. Or Steve will bring the smack down on me.



yeah, I know its a lot. think of it as a wish list.
-eblu

You ask nothing more than most of our users expect.

Just know that if we deliver on your requests, you will be expected to wear whatever LightWave swag we send you.

-Chilton

avkills
08-20-2006, 10:12 AM
Q-master support would be great. Some may not know, but Q-master I think is pretty standard for all Apple pro apps. I don't have Shake, but I sure have something called qmasterd running in the background. ;)

Actually this (http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/xgrid/) would be even better as every install of OS X has it. xGrid would probably be the way to handle renderfarms in OS X.

I'd also like to see some integration of Core Image and Core Animation. If the tools are there, use them even though it may give LW Mac an performance advantage over the Windows version. Platforms have advantages and as a software company you should leverage them.

Of course everyone wants faster OpenGL performance. But beyond that, it would be nice to use the GPU for rendering stuff, but that is probably just the same as using Core Image and Core Animation.

64bit? Maybe once Leopard is out in the open, this will finally happen. I already need more that 2GB of memory. Although I am wondering if it is possible to separate the renderer from the layout app so that each can have its own 2GB of memory. Is it possible for LW as a 32bit app being able to address more than 2GB now? I know FCP and Motion can, in fact Motion recommends 4GB of RAM.

Send the swag... I have no shame. :D

I've tried other 3D apps, and all of them act screwy compared to LW in my opinion. LW just makes sense on how it allows you to interact with cameras, lights and objects. For me, setting up scenes is LW is way way more easy than other apps.

And Chilton, it is great that you pop in here all the time, it is a big difference from a year ago.

-mark

dsol
08-20-2006, 10:31 AM
hmm... I think Lightwave as a whole suffers from "feature-itis" features are added over fixing bugs, or fixing design problems. This is a bad way to work and has lead Lightwave to where its been the last few upgrades. dedicate to getting the right Kind of support in the core of the app, over adding new features (which are only marginally helpful as they are usually encumbered with bugs.) This means... NO features until LW is in good shape.

I kind of agree with this sentiment. LW has a great toolset right now, particularly now with the new features of LW9 (nodes! APS! Camera tools!) and the announced improvements to Motion Blur/DOF (fixing one of my longest-held bugbears with the app). From a personal end-user perspective, LW has pretty much all the features I need for rendering end-product for 99.9% of jobs either built-in or readily available. Aside from the obvious well discussed stability issues, where it falls down for me most - and this is true of pretty much every pro 3D application I've used - is in project/asset management and workflow of the app.

I guess my word for today is ENCAPSULATION :) What I'd like to see is a change to the way LW handles objects in scenes so they become far more than just dumb meshes with surface data/vertex maps. Instead objects become "agents" - an encapsulated hierachy of miniature scene files I guess - which can be loaded into other scenes without breaking them into their component parts (as the current "load from scene" command currently does). These "Smart objects" could contain:

1. All the assets needed for that object - either stored internally within the object file's internal "asset library" (to keep the project tidy and organised), linked to the original external files (to minimise filesize) or linked to a central project asset file (to minimise duplication of assets within a project). For an example of this, look at the way Flash works - with it's support for projects with image/sound/video assets either embedded (saved within the project file), linked to external files or linked to another flash project.

Types of assets stored within could be - meshes (including multi-meshes for LOD, low complexity meshes for Physics), surfaces, vertex data, images, video, motions, envelopes, scripts and probably many more I haven't considered ;)

2. They also have the capability to contain pre-defined Animations (stored perhaps in different "states" of the object) which can be triggered externally when loaded into a parent scene through hooks (ports) defined by the user. A kind of morph-mixer on steroids! It's about making the organisation of a 3D project and its assets more object-orientated - you expose only the functionality needed by an animator when working with that object within a larger scene - and hide the rest.

3. Behaviours - the ability to script your smart object so that it can interact automatically with other smart objects. This would be awesome.

Obviously, this is not mac-specific. Rather, it's talking about a fairly fundamental redesign of LW and the way it interacts with the user. But I started typing, and found I just couldn't stop! I've barely scratched the surface of these ideas and other stuff like this, but I'd better stop before I start to annoy anyone :)

Oh and lastly - Chilton I just wanted to say again it's fantastic having someone from the dev team having this level of contact with end users. I think it's great - not only because it strengthens the LW community - but because I genuinely think it'll help make LW an even better app :)

ta

dsol
08-20-2006, 10:36 AM
64bit? Maybe once Leopard is out in the open, this will finally happen. I already need more that 2GB of memory. Although I am wondering if it is possible to separate the renderer from the layout app so that each can have its own 2GB of memory. Is it possible for LW as a 32bit app being able to address more than 2GB now? I know FCP and Motion can, in fact Motion recommends 4GB of RAM.


The 2GB limit only exists on Windows AFAIK - on OSX LW can use up 4GB (the ceiling for 32-bit apps). Something to do with device drivers or system resources in 32-bit Windows needing occupy the remaining 2GB space I believe. But hey, 2GB should be enough for anyone, right ;P

avkills
08-20-2006, 10:38 AM
dsol,

That is some wonderful stuff. I know exactly what you mean. There is a ton of stuff that you do in LW layout on an object level that is not currently saved in the object file, which makes a lot of stuff harder than it should be.

In fact, I may go so far to say that you can have a mini-prefs for what you do want to save in the object files.

-mark

avkills
08-20-2006, 10:40 AM
The 2GB limit only exists on Windows AFAIK - on OSX LW can use up 4GB (the ceiling for 32-bit apps). Something to do with device drivers or system resources in 32-bit Windows needing occupy the remaining 2GB space I believe. But hey, 2GB should be enough for anyone, right ;P

Really? I currently have 3.5GB and I have a scene that takes 1.4GB (according to top) and it seems to want to crash if I load more high-res images into it.

But if that is true, then that is good to know.

-mark

dsol
08-20-2006, 10:45 AM
dsol,

That is some wonderful stuff. I know exactly what you mean. There is a ton of stuff that you do in LW layout on an object level that is not currently saved in the object file, which makes a lot of stuff harder than it should be.

In fact, I may go so far to say that you can have a mini-prefs for what you do want to save in the object files.

-mark

Yeah, I always found the division of functionality between layout and modeler a bit baffling. I mean, surfacing objects within layout? It does make sense, but only if modeler becomes a stripped-down (but hella fast and uber-dedicated) mesh editor and layout becomes a multi-scene supporting hierachical object manipulation environment (whew!). So you can have a mini-scene open containing one of your Smart Objects (so you can edit the low-level characteristics), whilst have the same object open at a higher level in a Parent scene for animation

dsol
08-20-2006, 10:48 AM
Really? I currently have 3.5GB and I have a scene that takes 1.4GB (according to top) and it seems to want to crash if I load more high-res images into it.

But if that is true, then that is good to know.

-mark

Hmmm.. the top task bar may be lying :) Check Activity Monitor to see the actual memory usage under OSX. Are you using a G5 or G4 for this? I've only ever used G5's with LW (used to use PC's previously)

avkills
08-20-2006, 10:49 AM
I just checked top and it seems I only have 600 or so megs left when this scene is opened and rendering, so maybe I'll be off to the memory store if Chilton can confirm that LW Mac can use up to 4GB.

Yeah the Activity monitor shows LW using a bit less, but it also shows I have less physical memory left also. (I am running a Dual 2Ghz G5)

-mark

dsol
08-20-2006, 10:51 AM
Types of assets stored within could be - meshes (including multi-meshes for LOD, low complexity meshes for Physics), surfaces, vertex data, images, video, motions, envelopes, scripts and probably many more I haven't considered ;)


Assets in fact should be able to contain anything that is currently saved within a scene file - so Lights (including lensflare settings), hypervoxel objects, particles, dynamics etc. should be include-able

Chilton
08-20-2006, 11:40 AM
To answer the math question, my understanding is that memory space for 32 bit apps would be equivalent to 2^32, which, off the top of my head is around 4,294,967,296.

Google's got my back:

http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=2+%5E+32&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

However, how much of that LightWave can actually use at a time is not something I remember off the top of my head. I'll check into it this week though.

-Chilton

toby
08-20-2006, 01:18 PM
Thanks for the great questions Chilton, and for being obsessive about this :)

As far as Mac-specific improvements, the only places I think it lags behind the PC version is OpenGL speed and plug-in availability, which of course are not even LW specific -

As for non-Mac specific, I am seeing studios finding alternatives to LW because of the renderer, and that might mean one day I'll have to work in another program - which are all crappy :P

Motion blur has been addressed now, which is great, but there's still radiosity caching, which is not even new technology, and radiosity is almost useless in production without it. I haven't even heard any talk about this being worked on. A better solution for blurred reflections would be helpful too.

TomT
08-20-2006, 02:22 PM
I don't expect much. NT has not been straight with the Mac community for so long, the product has had so many problems, my friends have been banned on this forum for speaking their minds, and anyone remotely critical of NT or pointing out other products who do it better are verbally beaten to the ground.

If you want to know what I'd like to see, I'd like to see NT deliver a product so good that I drop Modo for modelling and throw C4D in the dumpster. (Yes, I'm using both--my boss mandates this.)

Please don't tell me about who cheap LW is now--I spent a small fortune on it back in LW4 days and the fact that you're charging so little now means almost nothing to me. The difference between a $100 upgrade, a $300 upgrade and $500 upgrade is virtually nothing compared to the value of my time.

I know it sounds harsh, but NT has to take a hard look at their competition and decide if they still want to be choice of _professionals_ on the Mac.

-Tom

:lightwave

Chilton
08-20-2006, 02:52 PM
I don't expect much. NT has not been straight with the Mac community for so long, the product has had so many problems, my friends have been banned on this forum for speaking their minds, and anyone remotely critical of NT or pointing out other products who do it better are verbally beaten to the ground.

So I've heard. But again, the NewTek of the past is not here today.


If you want to know what I'd like to see, I'd like to see NT deliver a product so good that I drop Modo for modelling and throw C4D in the dumpster. (Yes, I'm using both--my boss mandates this.)


Man, that'd be cool. If you decide to do that after the UB version ships, we'll expect a quote or something like that we can put up on our site.



Please don't tell me about who cheap LW is now--I spent a small fortune on it back in LW4 days and the fact that you're charging so little now means almost nothing to me. The difference between a $100 upgrade, a $300 upgrade and $500 upgrade is virtually nothing compared to the value of my time.


No joke! I remember dropping $700 on developer tools ten years ago that I can buy for $150 today. As long as people aren't complaining about the price of our product, I'll assume it's worth it. And considering what people are making in the 3D industry these days, I'm really surprised that pricing keeps going down.


I know it sounds harsh, but NT has to take a hard look at their competition and decide if they still want to be choice of _professionals_ on the Mac.


Keep your users close and your competitors closer. Forward-looking statements about NewTek's plans are not something I can divulge. But, you know, we have them. Plans, I mean. ;-)

-Chilton

Chilton
08-20-2006, 03:00 PM
To answer a question asked a few times now, I am looking for Mac specific requests. General LightWave features, design decisions, APIs, etc., are not something I have, or even pretend to have, a say in.

TomT
08-20-2006, 03:03 PM
re: dumping Modo and C4D



Man, that'd be cool. If you decide to do that after the UB version ships, we'll expect a quote or something like that we can put up on our site.

:agree:
I go better than that! I will be a reference for all your Bay Area accounts and work with my boss to reinstate LW throughout our pipeline (assuming NT unblocks his workstation! :p)

-T

TomT
08-20-2006, 03:08 PM
To answer a question asked a few times now, I am looking for Mac specific requests. General LightWave features, design decisions, APIs, etc., are not something I have, or even pretend to have, a say in.


Perfromance, Performance, Performance . . .

Stability, Stability, Stability . . .

Equivalancy, Equivalancy, Equivalancy . . .

:) :) :)

Chilton
08-20-2006, 03:11 PM
Perfromance, Performance, Performance . . .

Stability, Stability, Stability . . .

Equivalancy, Equivalancy, Equivalancy . . .

:) :) :)

Since you've asked three times, I guess I'll look into it. :)

-Chilton

gatz
08-20-2006, 03:30 PM
As far as fixes go I agree that HUB and Modeler/Layout integration is wanting. The Hub has never worked for me. It just doesn't hold up for any length of time. I don't know whether it's the size of my models or a specific operation. After every new release I leave it active until it craps out, usually in the first day of heavy use. Now Replace with Object will crash Layout, so some form of reliable, rock solid and dependable data interchange needs to established.

The main reason I shuttle back and forth between apps is for texturing. Being able to define surfaces to polys in Layout and preview render in Modeler would eliminate most of the trips back and forth between apps.

Consolidate, streamline and elegantification ;) There are a lot of redundant tools. The area that comes to mind is cutting and joining which, depending on what kind of geometry your dealing with could require band saw, splitting, dissolving, add point or easysplit. These functions are scattered about the interface. There is a lot of this type of Rube Goldberg interface. Newtek doesn't seem to be able to throw anything away. The forums are full of "don't use that, use x" conventional wisdom. When it makes it to this point, the feature everyone's avoiding should be discarded.

This kind of stuff is just cosmetic. I think to capture a wider audience Newtek has to be willing to anger some folks. Re-think the work flow and methods and generally surprise the 3D world. Of course every time this has been done with other apps a break is made from the existing app. LW relegated to the Inspire category and GodHead3D held up as Newtek's answer to Maya, XSI et al? Yep, a lot of angry folks but hey Apple migrated to Intel.

gerry_g
08-20-2006, 04:06 PM
Originally Posted by avkills
Really? I currently have 3.5GB and I have a scene that takes 1.4GB (according to top) and it seems to want to crash if I load more high-res images into it.


Yeah, I've got my Mac up to about 3.5 Gigs of memory usage for LW, but from what I've read only the first 2 Gigs are real, the other 1.5 is virtual ( i.e. written to a scratch partition, which equals 'Disc Thrashing"). No ap in a 32bit environment (Windows or Mac) can see more than two, Apple just has better virtualization tech in it's OS. That said Photoshop will eat everything I have (which is 6 Gigs) and I imagine Adobe must be pulling some kind of unorthodox stunt to do this, but it makes you wonder, if Adobe can do this on a Mac why can't others Chilton.

Chilton
08-20-2006, 04:26 PM
Hi Gerry_g,

PhotoShop uses scratch disks for its undo world, and probably other things as well. My guess is that extensive use of the the various disk<->memory mapping system calls would lead to massive RAM consumption in OSX. Just a guess.

-Chilton

Jeffers
08-20-2006, 04:39 PM
gerry_g - You are right! 2 gig is the limit.

Mac specific support....I'm going to repeat what's already been said -

openGL and plugin development/support, nuf said!

gerry_g
08-20-2006, 05:07 PM
PhotoShop uses scratch disks for its undo world, and probably other things as well. My guess is that extensive use of the the various disk<->memory mapping system calls would lead to massive RAM consumption in OSX. Just a guess.


Yeah this was my first thought (in my last machine I had a high speed 15 Gig Barracuda drive as a dedicated PS Scratch drive), what I'm talking about is when you open Active Monitor and look at the pie chart that represents total installed ram, my PS usage always stops just shy of of the full 6 Gigs, I've often wondered does this truly mean real memory usage, but concluded it must else why would it say so,

Weepul
08-20-2006, 05:11 PM
Realistic expectations:
• Stability (that's what Macs tout, right?) I should never be sitting at my desk, wondering if that intensive operation I just initiated is going to cause a crash, nor smack my forehead going, "Oh right, doing [whatever I just did] causes problems." Comparability to rocks would be ideal. ;)
• Lack of bugs that don't make things unstable but which don't work right.
• Feature parity with the Windows version - and they should all work just as smoothly and quickly. (By the way, the HDR image saver and possibly others [haven't tested] in shipping LW9 doesn't work on Mac. How'd that one get left in from the beta?)
• Mac-architecture-specific optimizations in the code to make it run just as fast as an app possibly can.

Slightly wishful but still realistic expectations:
• Forget feature parity, how about feature superiority? I'm not familiar enough with the Core Image, etc. technologies to know how they would benefit LightWave, but if there's anything Mac specific that would be Really Cool, utilize it.
• MULTITHREAD EVERYTHING. :heart: If it's not multithreaded but can be, do it. If it can't be multithreaded, invent a new way to process the data in question. ;)

Even if stuff like deformations or boolean operations or dynamics calculations or Interpolated Radiosity pre-computations can't be sped up by taking advantage of those multiple cores every shipping Mac but the minis have, the rest of the app should be multithreaded. LW should never hang up. Subdividing and moving geometry after hitting F9? I should be able to move the window around with no lag short of the computations hogging ALL cores, or be able to hit "abort" and get instant response. I should be able to accidentally subdivide a mesh one too many times in Modeler and not see a spinning beachball, just a progress bar. The interface should always be at the ready. It's not like it would cause a performance hit - as far as I know, only actual rendering makes use of more than one processor presently.

I'd even love it if it were possible to, say, initiate a dynamic calculation and while it's running, go and tweak lights and cameras and stuff, or work on other layers in Modeler while some freezing of a mesh crunches away.

That's probably my most-desired update. Macs quickly adopted multi-CPUs as their avenue to greater power. Powerful apps should use them in every way possible.

Entirely wishful, unrealistic idea:
• Windows plugins working with both PPC and Intel Mac LW, at full speed. ;D

Lightwolf
08-20-2006, 05:13 PM
Well, since I'm currently cursing at Carbon while porting a plugin to OSX:

UB - (obviously, I hope it will also make HFS path names moot and allow for POSIX style file calls)
XGrid support - (then again, I also assume that a UB will make that quite easy at least from a command line level point of view).
Spotlight -search for assets within scenes and objects

As a side note: get the UB SDK docs out as early as possible to allow third parties to rev up.

Cheers,
Mike

Chilton
08-20-2006, 05:24 PM
Hi Gerry_G,


Yeah this was my first thought (in my last machine I had a high speed 15 Gig Barracuda drive as a dedicated PS Scratch drive), what I'm talking about is when you open Active Monitor and look at the pie chart that represents total installed ram, my PS usage always stops just shy of of the full 6 Gigs, I've often wondered does this truly mean real memory usage, but concluded it must else why would it say so,

I'd heard (long ago) that Adobe was doing something fancy with disk allocations that let them use more of the physical ram as a side effect, but I don't remember the details. I believe the Activity Monitor includes paged memory in that pie chart.

There's a good (and fairly readable) explanation of the various memory limits here...
http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=4009&page=1

And an explanation of what Adobe is doing here...
http://www.adobe.com/support/techdocs/320005.html

This last article mentions the boot.ini trick, which I believe LightWave uses on the PC to access 3Gb of contiguous RAM. I'm not positive about that though, as I'm not much of a PC user.

-Chilton

eidetiken
08-20-2006, 06:00 PM
Chilton, you do know we want everything that's been listed so far, and we also expect Window's users to have to wait 1, 2, no... 3 years before they get any of the cool new features that are available in the Mac OS X UB version of Lightwave?

That's right, we expect the Mac engineers at NewTek to take the lead in coming up with innovative solutions to all things 3D.

dwnylen
08-20-2006, 06:05 PM
Keyboard assignments for the Command key (I've mentioned this in another thread). It's a big problem not being able to assign standard Mac keyboard shortcuts to common actions.

Flesh out the "real" application menu bar for commands that belong there. Everything in the LW File, Edit, Windows, Help, and Select menus should be accessible from the application menu bar. Common dialogs (Numeric, Surface Editor, Image Editor, etc.) should also be there, possibly under a 'Tools' menu.

Multiple windows. This isn't really a problem, but being able to have a seperate window per object with a common menu strip panel would be more in line with Mac UI guidelines. Allowing a seperate window per view of an object would be icing. OpenGL on the Mac handles multiple contexts with shared resources quite gracefully.

jat
08-20-2006, 07:07 PM
DRAG AND DROP for EVERYTHING..............yeah baby that's what I'm talking bout............backdrops, models, EVERYTHING.........

jat
08-20-2006, 07:12 PM
Light setup files that can be dropped into layout by simply dragging the file into the window......OH..OH.......and what if we could take independant objects, light files, texture files, render options and throw the whole thing into layout and make a gigantic cesar salad of different parts that will take on some sort of basic setup parameters assigned by the user or have a default scene parameter that can be tweaked however we like. If this sounds crazy, well, its because I am................. ;).............sorry I meant to say that this is "Thinking Different"...............

RonGC
08-20-2006, 09:32 PM
What's with the Soiux/ lightwaveout panel that i get occassionaly, if you could get rid of this feature i would be eternally grateful:D

Like some of the others mentioned, XGRID support big item, A delete key that i can get to work please.

Perhaps an in-house plugin crew to help developers convert pc plugins to mac?

Ditto to every thing else previously or to be later mentioned

Chilton, Thanks for the opportunity you give us for feedback, much appreciated.:thumbsup:

Ron

TomT
08-20-2006, 10:14 PM
Chilton,

While we thinking about stuff--how about some sort of autoconverters or kits to make porting PC plugins to the mac so simple that no one would leave out the mac platform out when releasing plugns. Lack of plugin compatiblity is a bit of a PIA for mac users.

-T

jeremyhardin
08-20-2006, 10:56 PM
going to give this some thought...but the very first thing that came to mind was QMaster support (and I see others have mentioned this).

parm
08-21-2006, 12:34 AM
Slightly wishful but still realistic expectations:
• Forget feature parity, how about feature superiority? I'm not familiar enough with the Core Image, etc. technologies to know how they would benefit LightWave, but if there's anything Mac specific that would be Really Cool, utilize it.
• MULTITHREAD EVERYTHING. :heart: If it's not multithreaded but can be, do it. If it can't be multithreaded, invent a new way to process the data in question. ;);D

Agreed here.

Parity with the PC version is the least that is expected. If there are Mac technologies that can make LW a better experience on the Mac. Then please don't wait, do it now.

And Chilton, thanks for your participation in this forum.

Kuzey
08-21-2006, 04:29 AM
Yeah....the more OSX features LW takes advantage of... the better :D

To top the other requests I made, the Content Directory Maker could do with more options, here's something I've been playing with for a bit 8/

Kuzey

Kuzey
08-21-2006, 04:46 AM
I just came up with a few more :D

SDK:
A step by step tutorial on how to import/read LW object/scene files for the dummies like me...I have no idea on how to convert EA IFF 85 format into something uesful like plain english :D

Also, is it possible to include a thumbnail image of the LW object/scene within the file itself, so you can see what's in it before opening it eg. when using "Get info"...it would show the thumbnail instead of the file icon. And make it 128x128 pixels :D

Actually, it would be better if you can do it without a thumbnail eg. view the object/scene file in real time OpenGL.



Kuzey

dsol
08-21-2006, 05:03 AM
To answer a question asked a few times now, I am looking for Mac specific requests. General LightWave features, design decisions, APIs, etc., are not something I have, or even pretend to have, a say in.

Fair enough. So where do I go to yell (balmer-like) ENCAPSULATION, ENCAPSULATION, ENCAPSULATION! In the Feature Requests forum? Does anyone read that? :P

Ah well, Qmaster support would make me very happy. And the sweet universal binary goodness which I know is on the way fills me full of happy :)

eblu
08-21-2006, 07:33 AM
Just know that if we deliver on your requests, you will be expected to wear whatever LightWave swag we send you.

-Chilton

send me swag NOW, and I'll wear it. I draw the line at permanent tattoos tho, can't risk you guys changing the logo on me. ;)

Chilton
08-21-2006, 08:36 AM
send me swag NOW, and I'll wear it. I draw the line at permanent tattoos tho, can't risk you guys changing the logo on me. ;)

The logo changes were pretty simple. Nothing a little scar tissue won't fix ;-)

-Chilton

pantone
08-21-2006, 09:25 AM
Mac specific requests would be:

1. Proper mapping of the Apple key. (As previously mentioned)

2. Clean up the "programs" directory. I only wan to see the apps and important stuff. Can the ".shlb, .enu, and other files be put in a package or folders?

3. Proper handling ot truetype and post script fonts.

4. The ability to save file info within LW. (For spotlight searches).

5. Integration of the .PDF features in OSX. Perhaps the ability to "print to PDF" from open dialogs to capture settings, and to use PDF snapshots of models for previewing in OS dialogs.

6. The ability to save files with, or without, their file type suffix. (Ideally a global preference, or check box in the save dialog.)

7. This may be windows too, but... When a dialog has a resize handle on it (like the "general options" window in modeler) and you drag it out to make the window bigger all the stuff in the window should scale accordingly.

8. Either document the problems with Mac plugins that aren't working properly, or remove them completely.

9. Document screamernet setup for the Mac in the docs right next to the PC instructions.

10. Support bonjour (or whatever they're calling it now) for automatically synching configs between multiple macs. Perhaps it could even be used as part of screamernet to intelignetly connect to the host.

Scazzino
08-21-2006, 10:43 AM
Mac specific requests would be:
9. Document screamernet setup for the Mac in the docs right next to the PC instructions.

In the LW9 docs they've now included my Mac screamernet instructions (http://dreamlight.com/insights/10/welcome.html), which are even more detailed than the Windows instructions... Pages#458-488 of the Surface and Render manual. (Previous to LW9 there was virtually NO Mac ScreamerNet documentation included... ;-)

But Screamernet in general could use a Mac friendly implementation that wasn't nearly as complicated... ;)

Scazzino
08-21-2006, 10:53 AM
Hi Chilton,

First off you've already taken the first BIG step... Asking Mac users what they really want... rather than assuming we just want the same thing that Windows users want, ported to the Mac... ;)

BRAVO!

Here are some things I'd like to see in LW Mac...

More "Macness"

* Allow us to assign real Mac command-key combinations.

* Fix the "Mac backwards" mouse buttons... All other Mac Apps I have use command-click for discontinuous selections and control-click for the pop-up menu. LightWave does this backwards in many areas...

* Use standard Mac GUI widgets for windows, controls, buttons, scroll bars, text fields, etc. All windows should have enabled zoom buttons for instance. All text fields should work the same way Mac text fields work on all other programs. Currently LW's New Scene Editor's text fields are very strange and check out the text fields in the lower left of the main Layout window... try to select the first character... it's very funky.

* A full set of real Mac menus... take a look at modo...

* Proper file bindings so we can double-click a scene to open it in Layout or a model in modeler...

* Don't save data in the programs folder. ie presets etc shouldn't write to the programs directory since that is often locked in non-admin users.

* Proper handling of file name extensions in ALL save dialogs. Currently the user has to handle this themselves.

* Follow general Mac conventions throughout such as
Save [Command-S], saves to current file (without ANY prompts)
Save As... [Command-Shift-S], saves with a file naming prompt, etc.
Closing a window doesn't quit the program, just closes the file.
etc...

Fix many old LW Mac bugs.
(Chilton I'll PM you about the bugs in more detail)

* Floating point image savers are busted on Mac (other than Cineon).

* Fix the Mac text field panel focus bug.

* Fix the Image Viewer window on dual monitor Macs bug.

* Fix the texture window that keeps moving bug.

* Fix Viper's busted mosaic render on the Mac.

More Windows parity

* Give us a Preview options panel which is currently missing on the Mac version.

I'll post more as they occur to me... ;)
Great that you asked! :thumbsup:

liquidik
08-21-2006, 12:07 PM
Well, other than the generics LW requests, I hope to see:

* integration of Qmaster
* Render layers export to Shake or Motion scene
* Some native way of accessing Subversion or CVS from within LW
* Spotlight searches
* True 64 bit support for leopard
* a widget to control render jobs would be cool!

Gian

PS: thanks Chilton for all the hard work you're doing...

EricStreeter
08-21-2006, 12:35 PM
Chilton,

As Mac users we expext things to work and work well! Smooooth. Considered.

Ask questions. What does the user expect? I know you asked. But, that thinking needs to take place during the design of features. The Mac is based on figuring out what the user wants before they want it. Become a USER and you'll understand. STAY an observer and you'll continue to add and add and add and force me to go 27 levels deep to get to the button I need. Splattering all the buttons all over the interface isn't the answer either. Blind exposure of features isn't designing an interface. End rant.

On a specific note, FPrime! FPrime! FPrime! Buy Worley's soul if you have to.

And please make the render preview work when the image isn't perfectly 640x480. We need to see what's going on. This is a perfect example of "well we gave you a feature" and our "but it doesn't @!*% work right."

Thanks. I hope you join the Mac users in Mac-land with a Mac-program. If you don't Modo is going to burn your a-s-s!

Chilton
08-21-2006, 12:43 PM
Ask questions. What does the user expect? I know you asked. But, that thinking needs to take place during the design of features. The Mac is based on figuring out what the user wants before they want it. Become a USER and you'll understand.

Are you assuming that Mac developers aren't Mac users?

-Chilton

dsol
08-21-2006, 12:55 PM
Thanks. I hope you join the Mac users in Mac-land with a Mac-program. If you don't Modo is going to burn your a-s-s!

Them's fightin' words. I don't know if modo is necessarily any more of a mac program than LW (or ZBrush for that matter). After all, it has its own custom interface not based on any OSX interface widgetry. Though admittedly the interface is a fair bit prettier and mac-like (read: antialiased) than the LW one, which is plenty functional but looks a bit lo-fi these days IMNSHO

Mmmmm.... lickable :)

EricStreeter
08-21-2006, 01:03 PM
Are you assuming that Mac developers aren't Mac users?

-Chilton

Using a Mac doesn't make you a Mac User for one. Just open LW. A PC program. Not pretty. Not polished. Not Aqua. ;-)

When Mac Users (non-3D) look over my shoulder as I work in LW, that just shake their head and walk away seeing all the levels deep I have to go to do just one simple thing.

How about right-click select and done. That's Mac. An intuitive approach. Give me only the buttons I need when I need them. When making a hamburger, the Mac ask, "Would you like pickles on that?"

Mac people actually show off things that should be hard and aren't. That's Mac. "This should be difficult but it's not." That's Mac. Putting up with it isn't. Given an option, Mac user go for interface EVERY TIME!!!!!!!

Chilton
08-21-2006, 03:00 PM
Hi Eric,

LightWave on the Mac is undergoing a metamorphosis. NewTek hired me to help facilitate this. User Interface is something I consider one of my strengths, and I'm looking forward to changing what needs to be changed in LW, within reason. I've been a Mac user since the first one shipped. So you're preaching to the choir.


Using a Mac doesn't make you a Mac User for one. Just open LW. A PC program. Not pretty. Not polished. Not Aqua. ;-)


You're not going to get an Aqua interface for LightWave for three reasons.
1) It's inappropriate for most of our users' studios.
2) It won't fit in with pro apps on MacOSX.
3) Apple's User Interface gurus told me not to, at WWDC. The future of LightWave's UI on the Mac is something I'll keep close to my vest at this time, though.



When Mac Users (non-3D) look over my shoulder as I work in LW, that just shake their head and walk away seeing all the levels deep I have to go to do just one simple thing.


Yeah, I tend to agree, but general LightWave navigation issues are not really up to me.


How about right-click select and done.
Do you mean left click? I can't think of a Mac app that uses right click for selection.


That's Mac. An intuitive approach. Give me only the buttons I need when I need them. When making a hamburger, the Mac ask, "Would you like pickles on that?"

Well, I assume you're talking about context sensitivity here. I'm not sure to what degree I will be changing this though.

The Tao of Mac would actually wait until you selected a pickle to ask if you want to add it to your hamburger.

DOS/Windows: question->Object
Mac: Object->question

For example, in DOS, you'd RUN an application. On the Mac, you'd select the application, then run it. To a degree, this changed with the advent of Windows, but you still see the question->object metaphor in modern Windows apps.


Mac people actually show off things that should be hard and aren't. That's Mac. "This should be difficult but it's not." That's Mac. Putting up with it isn't. Given an option, Mac user go for interface EVERY TIME!!!!!!!

Ah, you didn't get a chance to use iPhoto v1.0, did you? ;-)

-Chilton

frank1024
08-21-2006, 03:40 PM
Give us Mac users a screamernet that is easier to use. Something that is drag and drop.

eidetiken
08-21-2006, 05:51 PM
What's so wrong with Lightwaves interface?

I just got Z-Brush, can only run it on my old Powerbook, but talk about a different interface.

Chilton, I'm glad you're here.

avkills
08-21-2006, 08:03 PM
No offense, but I've been doing a short test drive of Modo, and quite frankly, I prefer Lightwave's GUI to it. I guess I am used to Lightwave, but as I've said before, it just makes sense the way you manipulate objects, lights, cameras and the such.

Although to be fair, I really do not do any insane modeling, so I can't effectively judge with that in mind.

And I have to agree with Chilton, LW with a Aqua interface would be out of place. Now Lightwave with a Pro - Apple app interface aka FCP or Motion would be a much better idea; but then you come up to the fact that LW looks and feels the same no matter where you run it, and this is a big plus for studios and artists whom may have to work on Macs at work, and PCs at home or vice versa.

-mark

ItsPete
08-21-2006, 09:03 PM
ok sorry! this is a bit lame as it's not really a mac request. rather a make app compatible mac request. Joachim Ante at over the edge (guys who make unity) had tried to talk with nt about supporting the lw format in unity. it was right smack dab in the midst of trying to get 9 shipped. understandably he didn't get much of a response at the time. i'd really really like native lw support in unity! joe can be reached at joe at otee dot dk or stop by the unity forum. again sorry! a bit ot but what the heck... ;)

Chilton
08-21-2006, 09:47 PM
I'd really really like native lw support in unity!

I have used Unity in the past, think it's an excellent game dev environment, and am very happy with their overall design philosophy. I was not aware they were having problems with LW import. I'll send an email now. I'm not entirely sure what I can do to help them, but I'll be happy to at least open the door ;-)

Are you a Unity user yourself?

-Chilton

(I saw at least one of the Unity guys at WWDC this year, but didn't have time to chat)

mlinde
08-21-2006, 09:51 PM
Well, I've been around a while, and have recently let LW slip to the back burner a bit with other things going on. I think my number one Feature/Bug - request is resolution of network rendering tools. I've mentioned this before a number of times, but with the cost of hardware (CPUs) so low, building a render farm at a small business or studio isn't the chore it used to be, but making it work still is.
NETWORK RENDERING REQUESTS:
1) True command line render control (can you say Terminal?)
2) Interoperability with other available render control tools like QMaster
3) Effective scene/plugin/file management via network rendering (simple directory mangement would be nice, like automatic recognition of directory location via bonjour/rendezvous.
4) Simple control and setup of render nodes, like QMaster (or simply using it for node control)
OS/SYSTEM INTEGRATION REQUESTS:
1) True and effective multi-monitor/multi-window UI. Often, even up through bits of 9, a window becomes the "front" when it shouldn't or disappears to the back when it shouldn't. If it's a toolbox or "palette" let it work like one. If it's a display or render window, let it work like one (oh, and OS X lets you use CMD-Tilde to cycle through windows in many applications - I should try this to see what comes up with LW nowadays).
2) CPU/GPU dependent and independent function. For YEARS the solution to speed up performance in LW was "get a new CPU" or "get a new computer" - never "Get a new GFX card" - even though the performance boost on demand was Open GL redraw speed not full-featured render speed boost. In some other applications, a new GFX card changes your work experience completely. In LW, a new CPU has been the only answer. Offload GFX performance to the GFX engine!
3) Integration with AppleScript and Automator. Imagine using Automator to set up a basic render scenario, and then applying it to any project with a folder action.

---
That's what I can come up with in 15 minutes or less.

ItsPete
08-21-2006, 09:59 PM
i am a unity and lw user and am ecstatic to hear such a fast and proactive response! joe tried nt, as i said, right in the heaviest time of getting 9 out. no surprise it wasn't high priority. right now lw is only supported through fbx. at the time he was talking native support. not sure what he needs in order to get there but an email is start - THANKS!

joe was at wwdc. jesus hair and beard. david h was the "clean cut" guy :) they took runner up to modo in the design awards, graphics category. it's really a cool app! if you like game dev, you should check out the latest version. ton of surprises in it!

toby
08-21-2006, 10:38 PM
Using a Mac doesn't make you a Mac User for one. Just open LW. A PC program. Not pretty. Not polished. Not Aqua. ;-)

When Mac Users (non-3D) look over my shoulder as I work in LW, that just shake their head and walk away seeing all the levels deep I have to go to do just one simple thing.
You've got to compare Lightwave to other 3D programs before you draw conclusions, not 2D apps. They're much deeper by comparison. There's ten times as many commands. The nature of 3D, the very attempt to simulate anything in the Universe plus anything the human imagination can dream up, forces complexity. Lightwave is one of the best examples of being simple but still powerful.



How about right-click select and done. That's Mac. An intuitive approach. Give me only the buttons I need when I need them. When making a hamburger, the Mac ask, "Would you like pickles on that?"

Mac people actually show off things that should be hard and aren't. That's Mac. "This should be difficult but it's not." That's Mac.
That's LW. 3DSMax and Maya are much more complicated and unintuitive.



Putting up with it isn't. Given an option, Mac user go for interface EVERY TIME!!!!!!!
Guilty! But LW has the most intuitive and attractive (until LW[8] anyway) interface I've ever seen, and I cut my teeth on Photoshop. Just because it's different ( think different! ) doesn't mean it's inferior or unattractive. I'm personally against having LW look like 'every other Mac program'.

Darth Mole
08-22-2006, 03:04 AM
I'd like LW to properly understand where I want it when moving between open apps. Example: if I have Mail open and I click on the picture viewer within Layout, I don't get Layout, I just get that window pane. LW's not smart enough to know it's part of LW and bring the entire app to the front. (In fact if I click anywhere but the top tab of the main window I need to click back to the other app and do it again!)

Likewise, if I'm rendering and forget to turn off the render display, LW jumps to the foreground every frame. So if I'm trying to do something else, it interrups me every x seconds to show me the image! When I put LW in the background I want it to STAY in the background!

It's minor but if you can assign a keystroke to a panel, it should be a toggle. F4 on, F4 off. (Using my key set-up) Scene Editor doesn't; Graph Editor can't (it uses F2); Surface Editor does; Image Editor does; Presets don't... and so on.

Slideable/scrollable panels. In the Surface Editor, if I have a lot of surfaces with long names I can't see them. I have to manually drag-enlarge the entire panel. I should be able to scroll across the name field, slide the right edge of the panel to the right (squishing the data field side), or mouse-hover over a name to show the entire entry.

(The mouse-hover thing could be useful in number of ways, primarily for beginners - or use a ? system which is becoming prevalent in many apps, like Modo, After Effects, Z-Brush.)

With regards the Aqua interface, take a look at Cinema4D - no-one (or at least very few) uses the Aqua option. Most plump for the subtler grey versions like 'Glow'. The curvy candy-coloured Aqua buttons look childish.

I don't have a major beef with LW's look and feel (I can see why you want to keep the UI as cross-platform as possible) - only the sheer amount of buttons and crossover between tools. (Like, for example, if you open an image and go to the Processing tab, the pull-down list contains dozens of options, but only a handful of them are actual processing filters).

(Take a look at AE's new interface, with the re-sizeable, dockable panels. That's still cross-platform but is a very clever way of maintaining screen real estate.)

Hope that helps! And thanks Chilton, for waving the Mac flag.

Kuzey
08-22-2006, 03:57 AM
2) It won't fit in with pro apps on MacOSX.
3) Apple's User Interface gurus told me not to, at WWDC. The future of LightWave's UI on the Mac is something I'll keep close to my vest at this time, though.

-Chilton

I would like to know more about those two :thumbsup:

Is Lw going to get some kind of metal facelift :)

And what reasons were given to not change the intereface...just a hint will do :thumbsup:

Well, one way of changing the interface without changing the interface is to get rid of the button icons and just have text on a smooth background...just thinking out loud :)

Kuzey

dsol
08-22-2006, 04:47 AM
Take a look at AE's new interface, with the re-sizeable, dockable panels. That's still cross-platform but is a very clever way of maintaining screen real estate.

I heartily agree with this. The new AE interface is really **** good. I assume it's likely to become the new interface across all their pro apps. I guess it was one of the benefits of the Adobe/Macromedia merger - the UI patents both companies hold can now all be used to create a "best of both worlds" interface. I'd also like to mention the UI of Combustion which is very good too - though not as flexible as the new Adobe one.

I'm really looking forward to seeing improvements to the UI in lightwave.


You've got to compare Lightwave to other 3D programs before you draw conclusions, not 2D apps. They're much deeper by comparison. There's ten times as many commands. The nature of 3D, the very attempt to simulate anything in the Universe plus anything the human imagination can dream up, forces complexity. Lightwave is one of the best examples of being simple but still powerful.

That's true, to a degree. There is more complexity in 3D apps and they're much harder to write than 2D compositing apps (I'm assuming!). However, I think it's fair to say that most 3D apps, Lightwave included, don't always have a user interface or production workflow that lends itself to artists/editors/compositors in the way that, say, After Effects or Combustion does.
I think a lot of this has to do with the sci-tech CAD origins of many of them - a field full of people who are generally not artists. Most of the hardcore geeks I know don't care about User Interfaces. Probably because they do 99% of their work via the command line! (see: Linux)
Maya and Studio Max are clearly influenced by this ugly heritage. LW not nearly so much - it was designed to be a video production tool from version 1. But just because LW is better, it doesn't mean there's not things it could be doing to help Video and Film guys like me smooth the production process.

I've already ranted about improving encapsulation and organisation of the workflow. But there's obvious little things that bug me right now and strike me as needlessly anal and fiddly in LW. Say, rendering a quick render preview with F9 and not seeing it as no Image Viewer (or the wrong Image Viewer) is selected in the Render Options window (because you had to disable it while rendering a low-res test anim). I can understand the technical reasons why it works that way, but it's not a human-centric design. IMNSHO :) (and I know that it gives you an option to turn it back on again - but it's still an irritation, it feels like the app's getting in your way. Like MS Clippy!)

The modular design of LW is undoubtably one of its strengths and has enabled the gradual progressive re-write that's been taking place over 8.x and 9.x - but sometimes it feels to the end user that the different internal components of Lightwave don't communicate - or link together as a totally seamless tool with a single over-arching design (and workflow) philosophy.

I guess I should put in a disclaimer at this point: I've not used LW9 yet - can't afford the upgrade yet until a pesky client pays me on a big job - so if any of these issues were resolved in the new version I'll eat humble pie :)

And in case I'm sounding too negative, I'd better say :lightwave

Chilton
08-22-2006, 11:35 AM
(wrong thread... moving message...)

eblu
08-22-2006, 03:40 PM
No offense, but I've been doing a short test drive of Modo, and quite frankly, I prefer Lightwave's GUI to it. I guess I am used to Lightwave, but as I've said before, it just makes sense the way you manipulate objects, lights, cameras and the such.


I too am doing an eval of that app, and I have to say... that Modo has the industrial approach to tools that Lightwave lost a long time ago. Lightwave used to do fantastic things on a scale that blew away apps that cost 10xs more. it was simple and powerful. every tool (think about modeler tools) could interact on any kind of data. With the advent of skelegons, you could use all of the transform tools on them and they'd still show up in LightWave. That was the pinnacle of Lightwave's Industrial Pedigree. And then things started going south. The tools started to become contextually applicable... they'd work with this one kind of data, but not this other kind of data. Skelegons, in the very Next revision to Lightwave, lost the ability to be manipulated by the main toolset... so a whole new and klunky toolset was developed. Then other "features" were piled on, each one with its own interface, limited value due to its applicable context, and more and more bugs.

Chilton mentioned a very important basic tenet of the macintosh user experience, the idea that every Thing in the computer is a virtual object that you can select and then manipulate. Lightwave USED to adhere to this, in its own small way. these broken UIs, limited and nearsighted tool sets, with their bugs, and gotchas Get in the way of doing work, of selecting and manipulating objects in Lightwave.

Its a tough decision to scrap alot of hard work and go back to the drawing board on every feature in the app, but the one lesson Newtek SHOULD have learned by now is that the hard decisions are less painful if made as early as humanly possible. Modo, is a brand new application, they can more easily draw lines in the sand, and adhere to them. Lightwave has a mountain of core changes, and redesigns ahead of them if they want to take Lightwave ahead of the pack. Modo is a great way of measuring the pent up consumer demand for that kind of industrial strength.
I wouldn't say I expect this kind of decision from Newtek, But I want you guys to know that there is a great deal of demand for it, that new users and old users alike are aware Of this Kind of robustness, and it would definitely pad Newtek's bottom line like no tomorrow.

mike_stening
08-23-2006, 03:30 AM
sorry not read through all of this just yet so appologies if i repeat something already said.

better stability between the hub and the main apps, so when the model has been updated layout updates like it should, and a bit quicker would be nice.

OpenGL improvement, so it actually makes sense buying a quick graphics card.

the ability to render large format stills for print, and by that i mean doing things at around A2 or A1 size 300dpi(A1 is 9922x7016 pixels), as recently i have had to go with smaller sizes as LW can't use all my ram (6.5GB should be enough for a still) and i get an out of memory message.

everything that is already there works as it should (at least for more of the time than it does right now) before going too mad on new features and i love a new feature as much as the next man.

like the idea of xgrid for network rendering but would also like to have the ability of using other macs on the network to use thier processing power for large format stills rather than just using individual processors off those machines to do individual frames, so they all get used for one frame (still) as some of these stills can take a couple of days to render as as i'm sure some of you know the final render can be the day before a deadline and it would be good to get it done overnight at the quality you want within a tight time frame and utilising multiple macs (much like doing a single frame on my quad but using 8 machines or more) to do the rendering.
hope that one makes sense.

DON'T merge modeler and Layout into one app, it's one of the main things i like about LW is that you can work in modeler on other work while layout renders. though it would also be quite nice to be able to send renders to a satalite controller that then clears the layout workspace so you can work on other jobs whilst the satellite controls the render and save the files (from the render setup in layout) might be asking a bit much now.

the main thing i think is improved speed and stability

avkills
08-23-2006, 05:40 AM
Maybe adding on to what Mike is saying about rendering from Modeler, it would be cool if you could set up a few simple lights for the perspective view in modeler and then render that view to a image viewer. It would allow one to mess with surfaces during modeling and actually seeing what they look like rendered.

-mark

BazC
08-23-2006, 08:10 AM
Sorry, I haven't got time to read the whole thread, I'm on holiday in an internet cafe (with a VERY slow connection!) so I'll just add my thoughts.

First priority rock solid stability, it's much better for me now than 8.5 was but still a long way from the kind of stability I enjoyed when using Cinema4d. If you can get it as close to crash proof as Maxons app I can put up with all the other foibles.

Next,openGL in modeler but that has already benn hugely improved in the next version apparently :D

Next, much faster rendering (even with simple scenes) especially radiosity/GI renders. It seems that Lightwave is way behind the latest renderers in speed.
I've no idea if the existing renderer can be updated to catch up speed wise or whether it would mean a brand new renderer. I'd love to hear your thoughts on this Chilton!

Streamlined/consolidated tools especially in modeler. Take a look at apps like Wings, Mirai, Silo, even Cinema4d and some of the plugins for Max. Lightwave modeler feels like a shotgun compared to a precision sniper rifle next to some of these modelers. I particularly like Wings and Silo for their versatile simplicity. A combination of those kind of tools for direct organic modeling and more sophisticated LWCAD type tools for more mechanical stuff would make a very powerful combination.

A good hair solution with easy and effective styling.

Something like Maxons sketch and toon for versatile NPR not just Cel renders.

3d painter.

Don't want much do I? :D

dsol
08-23-2006, 08:49 AM
like the idea of xgrid for network rendering but would also like to have the ability of using other macs on the network to use thier processing power for large format stills rather than just using individual processors off those machines to do individual frames, so they all get used for one frame (still) as some of these stills can take a couple of days to render as as i'm sure some of you know the final render can be the day before a deadline and it would be good to get it done overnight at the quality you want within a tight time frame and utilising multiple macs (much like doing a single frame on my quad but using 8 machines or more) to do the rendering.

Yeah, you can do that using Renderfarm Commander - it's a clever hack using the Limited Region render settings to render different segments of the same image on multiple CPUs over the network.


DON'T merge modeler and Layout into one app, it's one of the main things i like about LW is that you can work in modeler on other work while layout renders. though it would also be quite nice to be able to send renders to a satalite controller that then clears the layout workspace so you can work on other jobs whilst the satellite controls the render and save the files (from the render setup in layout) might be asking a bit much now.

If it's properly designed, I don't think that merging modeller and layout means you would have to be held up while it's rendering - so long as the renderer is separated from the core app and runs under the control of a render controller, integrated in LW but running as another separate process. Ideally I'd like to see modeler running as an integrated module/tool inside the master app (which is currently Layout/Lightwave). You should, of course, be able to have multiple scenes/objects open in multiple instances of the layout editor (which could then be used for either modelling, animation or both!). LW v10 or 11 maybe?

dsol
08-23-2006, 08:55 AM
Maybe adding on to what Mike is saying about rendering from Modeler, it would be cool if you could set up a few simple lights for the perspective view in modeler and then render that view to a image viewer. It would allow one to mess with surfaces during modeling and actually seeing what they look like rendered.

-mark

Layout-modeler: Merge it! merge it all :) But to keep complexity in check and stop it getting too insane and confusing, offer preset UI layouts for Modeler and Layout (switchable on the fly) and the ability to open multiple instances of Editor windows - so you could effectively replicate the "old" LW workflow by having one instance set to the "modeler" preset, and another set to a "layout" preset.

mike_stening
08-23-2006, 09:11 AM
merging the 2 apps would really put me off, one of the reaasons why i don't get on with cinema, or maya or max. and it wouldn't be lightwave any more as it has been this way for a while, if it aint broke dont fix it, just sort the hub out. unless of course modeler is included in the same archive as layout and they both launch together and are dynamically linked so getting rid of the hub but no idea how that would be done but then that aint what i do.

mike_stening
08-23-2006, 09:23 AM
also it would be nice to use multi processors/machine to do a large still rather than use a hack to get round it and then restitch afterwards.

dsol
08-23-2006, 09:29 AM
also it would be nice to use multi processors/machine to do a large still rather than use a hack to get round it and then restitch afterwards.

Yep, it'd be nice to see that capability added natively to LW. In the meantime I'd recommend giving renderfarm commander a whirl - it handles the restitching autmatically AFAIK. It's pretty cheap too, which is a good thing for us starving artists, right? :thumbsup:

disclaimer: I am in no way associated with Bruce Rayne Software - beyond being a very satisfied customer :)

Scazzino
08-23-2006, 09:33 AM
In the meantime I'd recommend giving renderfarm commander a whirl - it handles the restitching autmatically AFAIK. It's pretty cheap too, which is a good thing for us starving artists, right? :thumbsup:

Yes RenderFarm commander is excellent and can handle this easily.

One thing to be aware of though, which has nothing to do with RenderFarm Commander, but rather with how LightWave renders segments. If you use area lights and/or radiosity with LW's noise reduction on a multi-segment render that you intend to stitch together, beware that there may be some slight rendering seams visible where the noise reduction smooths each segment slightly differently...

mike_stening
08-23-2006, 09:58 AM
thats kinda what i was worried about was the mismatching in the render, though i didn't know it restitched for you.
though the mismatching is based on processor versions rather thanmachines, sorry getting off topic.

Scazzino
08-23-2006, 10:06 AM
thats kinda what i was worried about was the mismatching in the render, though i didn't know it restitched for you.
though the mismatching is based on processor versions rather thanmachines, sorry getting off topic.

Not quite, the mismatched renders that I'm talking about are caused by how the noise reduction is calculated. It's calculated differently for different limited-region segments, even on the same machine and processor... If you turn off noise reduction, the limited-region segments should match... Sorry for drifting off-topic... ;)

toby
08-23-2006, 11:26 PM
though it would also be quite nice to be able to send renders to a satalite controller that then clears the layout workspace so you can work on other jobs whilst the satellite controls the render and save the files (from the render setup in layout) might be asking a bit much now.

Absolutely not! Check out Jeremy's BG Render, starts a background render on your machine with just a push of a button!
http://jeremy.lwidof.net/lscript/

mike_stening
08-24-2006, 02:43 AM
hmm nice idea, though get an error :' Line62, invalid object method eof()':
so no idea what i'm doing wrong :help:

jeremyhardin
08-24-2006, 09:10 AM
hi mike. that only happens if you've renamed your LWSN file and LWSN cmdline file or moved them from the default install directory. a normal install of LW will work just fine. give it a try. move/rename "LWSN" and "LWSN cmdLine" back to the Programs directory and the default name and try it again.

it was made to work on a mac first, so it's not some half-assed port. :thumbsup:

Scazzino
08-24-2006, 10:06 AM
Hi Chilton,

Just checking if you got my PM (Private Message) with details about some Mac specific bugs that could use squashin'?

:beerchug:

Chilton
08-24-2006, 10:28 AM
Hi Mike,

Message received. They're all on my list to fix :thumbsup:

-Chilton

Scazzino
08-24-2006, 02:52 PM
Sounds great. ;)

More wish list items... allow working with AIF audio files rather than just WAV format... and make it work on the Mac. Currently I don't see the waveform and the audio seems to loop around on itself without any regard to the actual frame I'm on... audio support just seems broken on the Mac in general.

Jeffers
08-24-2006, 03:15 PM
Oh yeh - audio scrubbing..... fix it!

jeremyhardin
08-24-2006, 06:20 PM
aif works normally and has since 7.5 as far as I know. what's not working for you?

Scazzino
08-24-2006, 06:34 PM
aif works normally and has since 7.5 as far as I know. what's not working for you?

If I try to add an AIF file, it's just grayed out in the file dialog and not available. So I convert to a WAV file and add it, then no waveform shows up anywhere that I can see. When I play the animation the sound plays but if I stop it and move the play head and play again, the sound continues where it left off, not synced to the frame I'm on. Then once the sound finishes, it fails to play again and must be reloaded. If the sound is longer than my frame range, then it loops around and continues playing when the frame range starts over, so there's no sync with the frames whatsoever... It also plays with skips and stutters.

If that's how it's supposed to be, it's not very useful... ;)

EDIT: Notice that the ".aif" file is grayed out in the Load Audio dialog attached... by default it's filtering out the ".aif" file and only allowing access to the ".wav" file. I just realized that I can change the filter to all files (don't normally need to do such a thing on the Mac since most programs are normally set to show all applicable files without changing the dialog filter) and then I can use the ".aif" file, but it shouldn't be filtered out to begin with. It should allow all acceptable sound files to be selected by default...

EDIT2: The manual should also mention that AIF files are allowed. I think it only mentions WAV files which was part of the reason I didn't think AIF worked, they were filtered out of the dialog and not mentioned in the manual... ;)

Scazzino
08-24-2006, 07:27 PM
It looks like part of the problem is that the Audio Start Time doesn't seem to work. I would expect I could use the Audio Start Time to shift where I want the audio to start in my scene, or is it for something else entirely? It doesn't seem to do anything...

If I load a 20 second audio clip into a 2000 frame (30fps) animation it loads at frame 0 and setting the Audio Start Time seems to have no effect, so frames after 600 behave very very strangely. When the audio is first loaded it will play on those higher frames, but just once and straight through without regard for which frames I'm on. If I skip around to different frames and let the scene play, it still plays the audio straight through without any regard to which frame I'm on...

Even at frame 0 though, the sound skips and stutters and is barely audible. I do see the waveform, but again it's stuck at frame zero.

The fixed frequency doesn't seem to work either. Selecting it seems to have no effect. When it plays it sounds like fixed frequency is always on. I don't get any pitch changes when scrubbing, just skipping...

For the sound to be really useful on the Mac I'd like to be able to use an AIF file (without having to disable the file dialog filtering) and place it anywhere within my scene. I'd like it to play nice and smooth as I play the scene and I'd like to be able to hear it as I scrub.

8~

gatz
08-24-2006, 08:31 PM
I'd like it to play nice and smooth as I play the scene and I'd like to be able to hear it as I scrub. 8~


Agreed. I was surprised to find out how useless the audio features of LW were. Scrubbing doesn't work and previews don't play with the same sync twice. I really don't see the point of having the option of loading audio at all.

rg

munky
08-25-2006, 01:59 PM
Hi There,

one point of having the audio is that you can use the audio Channel Modifier (graph editor) to animate your object in sync with the music! could be a big time saver. Also seeing where the peaks and troughs of the audio wave are can help your animations timing.

But it would be nice to have it smooth and realtime.

regards

paul

kyleprometheus
08-26-2006, 04:42 PM
Hello Clinton.

I've just downloaded LW 9 from my Newtek account.

I'm glad Newtek is finally listening to what Mac users want. Newtek will find Mac users fiercely loyal if they show a willingness to implement Mac technologies in things like Tiger/Leopard. With the upswing in the Mac market and Market share growth...what can Newtek do to get some of that revenue growth? How can they make Lightwave THE 3D app for Mac users? Core Animation for example. Could really help with 'help' and how tools work overlaying the traditional Lightwave interface items. I find Lightwave looks like Apple's pro tools...kind of...it's established in TV production work? But that doesn't mean mean user interface stuff and technologies can't be supported ontop of the basic Lightwave functionality. For example...could I use Spaces in Leopard to have modeler on one space...and Lightwave on another space? Could Core animtion be used for the displaying of objects in Open GL?

My main concern though, is will Newtek support the exciting speed up posed by Multi-threaded Open GL as talked about in www.insidemacgames.com, Arstechnica, Macworld? Apple, to their credit, have moved forward greatly with 3D in the last 6 years compared to where they used to be. At least they offer low, middle and high end cards now! Word on the street is that Open GL multi-threaded is now supported on the new Mac Pros...and will be included in general...probably in Leopard. When dealing with displaying a model with millions of polygons...offloading the GL work to other cpus and the GPU in general can give up to a twice the frame rates according to the above links.

2nd thing. Will Newtek squeeze everything out of 8 core Macs? Which set to be released (Clovertown?) early next year 2007. Will we see a big boost over 4 core Macs now? How well threaded is Lightwave now? On an 8-core machine, will we see almost instant rendering for somethings? Using F-Prime? Will the GPU (as powerful as they are becoming...) be used to hardware accelerate rendering or for 'previews'?

When I see what some games are doing 'real time' with game engines like Id's Doom 3? I wonder why apps like Lightwave aren't doing more with 3d in real time. GPUs are very powerful these days and display loads of polygons. I get the feeling that 3D apps aren't fully utilising this power yet...and that's directly linked to time/work flow...much better/needed than some of the other features I see added and think...'Am I going to really use that?' I'd like to see bugs squashed and everylast ounce of optimisation for multi-core and multi-threading on CPUS/GPUS.

Will Lightwave offer 64 bit support now that Leopard is on the horizon?

I like Lightwave. I'm still only learning it. But I like it over over 3D apps such as Xsi, Maya, Max, Cinema.

I think it could perhaps go back to it's early, more 'direct' roots though. Perhaps a few notes could be taken from the Modo book?

Lightwave. I remember years back when I saw LW4 reviewed in Computer Arts! I wanted it so badly then. Now I have Lightwave 9! :thumbsup:

EricStreeter
08-26-2006, 05:01 PM
Chilton,

Hi again.

Some of my comments may have been a bit harsh the first time around. Here's are some, more constructive comments.

This is some of what happened to me in one working session. I realize some of these may be bugs and some may just be me.

Loading a new image, left whatever image previously select, selected too, after the new image was brought in.
Leaving me to wonder if my editing will effect both.

Saving an Object Increment did not change that object increment number.
Leaving me to wonder if it happened at all. It did. But you can't tell.

Frame number displayed in Graph Editor was a fraction even though I don't have that set.
Leaving me to wonder what frame I have selected.

Every time I save my objects the Surface editor closes all the folder.
Leaving me to figure out where I was in my editing process.

Quicktime texture did not update correctly in OpenGL.
Leaving me to wonder if I screwed up. I didn't.

Surface Editor windows don't show the object name in the Title Bar.
Leaving me to wonder what surface I'm editing.

Command-Z seems to just be random. No thank you. This is worse than no Command-Z at all.

And...

3 crashes, Texture Panels that jump from one screen to the other and GLSL is painfully slow.

There's four hours worth of issues for you.

Don't get me wrong... I make my living using LW.
But time is money and Modo is pretty cheap. They have already absorbed 100% of the modeling I used to do in Modeler.

toby
08-26-2006, 07:52 PM
It looks like part of the problem is that the Audio Start Time doesn't seem to work. I would expect I could use the Audio Start Time to shift where I want the audio to start in my scene, or is it for something else entirely? It doesn't seem to do anything...

Most people don't realize it but the Audio Start Time is in seconds, not frames; in other words if you put it at 1 then that starts the audio at frame 24, if your fps is 24.

Chilton
08-26-2006, 08:11 PM
Hi Kyle,

******* For anyone whose response I have not replied to, or anyone who feels I didn't address all of their points, it's not because I haven't read the post, it's probably because there was something in it I wanted to research or generally ponder a bit before I reply. And that was probably a run-on sentence.

In this particular case, I'm responding due to the depth of the questions about things I'm legally not allowed to discuss. So I'm responding as best I can, but keep in mind that recent reports in magazines and other online venues have definitely crossed the line in terms of their Leopard discussions, and I ain't goin' there.

********


Hello Clinton.

I've just downloaded LW 9 from my Newtek account.

I'm glad Newtek is finally listening to what Mac users want. Newtek will find Mac users fiercely loyal if they show a willingness to implement Mac technologies in things like Tiger/Leopard. With the upswing in the Mac market and Market share growth...what can Newtek do to get some of that revenue growth? How can they make Lightwave THE 3D app for Mac users? Core Animation for example.

Apple has not publicly divulged the information necessary for me to answer this correctly.


Could really help with 'help' and how tools work overlaying the traditional Lightwave interface items. I find Lightwave looks like Apple's pro tools...kind of...it's established in TV production work? But that doesn't mean mean user interface stuff and technologies can't be supported ontop of the basic Lightwave functionality.

For example...could I use Spaces in Leopard to have modeler on one space...and Lightwave on another space?

Yes, that will definitely work, according to the information Apple has publicly provided about Spaces at this time.



Could Core animtion be used for the displaying of objects in Open GL?

Apple has not publicly divulged the information necessary for me to answer this correctly.


My main concern though, is will Newtek support the exciting speed up posed by Multi-threaded Open GL as talked about in www.insidemacgames.com, Arstechnica, Macworld?

I believe all three of these sources have violated their NDAs, if they have them, with Apple. I don't plan on doing that, so I can't give you an accurate answer at this time.


Apple, to their credit, have moved forward greatly with 3D in the last 6 years compared to where they used to be. At least they offer low, middle and high end cards now! Word on the street is that Open GL multi-threaded is now supported on the new Mac Pros...and will be included in general...probably in Leopard. When dealing with displaying a model with millions of polygons...offloading the GL work to other cpus and the GPU in general can give up to a twice the frame rates according to the above links.

2nd thing. Will Newtek squeeze everything out of 8 core Macs? Which set to be released (Clovertown?) early next year 2007.

Yeah, probably :D


Will we see a big boost over 4 core Macs now? How well threaded is Lightwave now? On an 8-core machine, will we see almost instant rendering for somethings? Using F-Prime? Will the GPU (as powerful as they are becoming...) be used to hardware accelerate rendering or for 'previews'?

I can't answer that yet.


When I see what some games are doing 'real time' with game engines like Id's Doom 3? I wonder why apps like Lightwave aren't doing more with 3d in real time. GPUs are very powerful these days and display loads of polygons. I get the feeling that 3D apps aren't fully utilising this power yet...and that's directly linked to time/work flow...much better/needed than some of the other features I see added and think...'Am I going to really use that?' I'd like to see bugs squashed and everylast ounce of optimisation for multi-core and multi-threading on CPUS/GPUS.

I can't answer that yet either.


Will Lightwave offer 64 bit support now that Leopard is on the horizon?

LightWave is a 64-bit app on the Windows platform already. So that should tell you *something*. More than that, I can't say.


I like Lightwave. I'm still only learning it. But I like it over over 3D apps such as Xsi, Maya, Max, Cinema.

I feel exactly the same way! I might be biased, though.


I think it could perhaps go back to it's early, more 'direct' roots though. Perhaps a few notes could be taken from the Modo book?

No notes will be taken from the Modo book. LightWave is not a product I have much control over, as a whole. I'm only the Mac guy. That said, the Mac version of LightWave, going forward, will become more of a Mac app than it has ever been before.

"It is not enough to simply be better, one must be different as well."
Andre Citroen (rough translation)

-Chilton

Chilton
08-26-2006, 08:14 PM
Chilton,

Some of my comments may have been a bit harsh the first time around. Here's are some, more constructive comments.


While possibly harsh, I'm glad you posted it, and it's been added to my big list of things to do.

As has this one!

-Chilton

Scazzino
08-26-2006, 08:39 PM
Most people don't realize it but the Audio Start Time is in seconds, not frames; in other words if you put it at 1 then that starts the audio at frame 24, if your fps is 24.

Yes I know, but it doesn't work at all here... no matter what I set it to, the audio remains stuck on frame zero... ;)

kyleprometheus
08-27-2006, 04:54 AM
Thankyou, Clinton, for the reply.

I wouldn't say you're 'only' the Mac guy. :hey: But it's interesting that Newtek that have appointed a 'Mac guy' to coincide with Macs gaining marketshare (12% in the US notebook space last quarter!)

Reviews I've seen for Lightwave in the past have always seemed to respect it's basic prowess but have a lofty disdain for its interface. But surely there is plenty of room for negotation here to make future versions of LW more 'Mac' like. And I think Core Animation could point the way with it's exciting overlay technologies...while leaving the fundamental interface untouched. Just look at Apple's pro' apps for clues... ;) eg User customermisable Pie wheel for common user tools activated on a transparent floating layer on top. Or a commonly used Lightwave Tab on a floating dock (like the ones in Apple's iApps these days...) to be able to tab through certain options. Don't have to use it. But it would be exciting for Mac users to have the choice. I'm not an interface expert. I'll leave it up to the 'Mac guy' to see what can be implemented.

Since version 6/7 I've noticed the button layout categories have been tidied up a bit. Now, I'd guess the basic Lightwave 'production' based interface is probably set in stone bar a bit of tidying up the buttons under proper categories. I'd say Core Animation would allow Mac users to circumvent the traditional Lightwave interface in a Mac/Lightwave way...perhaps without compromising Newtek's vision but also adding a Mac feel. The question is how deep is the spirit of revolution in Newtek following the Lightwave 8-9 onwards overhaul?

But the fact that you're obviously aware of certain technologies from Apple's WWDC suggestions that...well, at least you're aware of them. You obviously can't comment on them for obvious reasons...but I can tell what I expect as a Mac user.

I'd guess Mac users expect more than just bug squash/feature parity. I think has been indicated by others in this thread.

It would be really exciting to see Newtek take advantage of Mac centric stuff like Core Animation, Core Image and even Core Video as well as the obvious Open GL boost that's coming. These are cool new Apple technologies. But they will only be reallly cool if developers grasp them with imagination. (If Windows had these 'cool' technologies I'm sure developers would take advantage of them...) Just coming up with a bug squash and a few cpu render optimisations isn't going to make LW more 'Mac like'.

So, Newtek are taking a big step forwards with Lightwave with version 9 forwards. ( It's an opporunity to really seize the Mac 3D market at the same time if they're overhauling things.)

For Newtek to get Mac users in general to take Lightwave to their collective hearts, Newtek will have to show imagination in how they can adopt these exciting new technologies into Mac Lightwave and see things like a Viper render window appear on a 'Spaces' virtual space. Core Animation to...I dunno...speed up workflow...demonstrate how some of the tools work, contextual help...

For years now, Adobe's stuff has begun to feel like Mac users get PC ports maybe because of basic marketshare economics. Will they be brave enough to put in things like Core animation/video/Image? To stand the Mac version of Photoshop head and shoulders above the PC version. Yes. That's Adobe. And we wait with baited to breath to see if they include Core Image/Video. I'm not optimistic. (Their ommission after all this time will be glaring...)

Clearly, there must be money in a Mac version of Lightwave. (Hey, I bought it! And Newtek still make it. :D ) But I'm sure there would be more money for Newtek if they just show willing to do the 'little' things that make the Mac...well...Mac....and will make the 'Mac' even more 'Mac' like circa Leopard.

The fact that you've started to really listen is an important step.

What will really matters is whether Newtek will implement these suggestions with conviction...and take advantage of stuff, exciting technologies that are and will be available for the Mac circa Leopard. Just little things to begin with...at least that shows willing. Presentational aspects even. eg Core Animation used on a Lightwave intro screen would be a start. Heh. The current Lightwave loading intro is well...underwhelming for a state of the art 3D app. It is the little things. And if Apple can do Core Animation stuff in 400 lines of code...that look amazing...then...with a bit of back bone...surely legendary developers like Newtek can do it. Just remember the Amiga's pioneering spirit.

Heck, it was noticeable when Apple.com started putting in 'feedback' forms on their site a few years back. If they can do it...

Kyle :)

dsol
08-27-2006, 07:01 AM
Just remember the Amiga's pioneering spirit.

**** yeah! thems were the days! (sniffs - chokes back a tear:cry: ).

Scazzino
08-31-2006, 12:21 PM
I'd like to see proper implementation of the Mac notification system. When a render finishes or anything that LW wants the user's attention, it should use the Mac's notification system (bouncing the icon in the dock) rather than stealing focus from whatever program is currently in the foreground.

I can't count how many times I've been in Photoshop painting something, or mail or safari typing something and LW jumps to the foreground when finishing a render or loading a scene, stealing focus from me in mid stroke/typing etc... It drives me batty and is VERY UN-MAC LIKE... ;)

EDIT: And since LW uses one-stroke key shortcuts, it often flies all over the place when it jumps to the foreground when I was in the middle of typing something in a different program. Since I can touch type, I generally type quickly enough that when LW steals focus it gets a good helping of keystrokes with which to mess up my scene... :devil:

Chilton
08-31-2006, 01:20 PM
I'd like to see proper implementation of the Mac notification system. When a render finishes or anything that LW wants the user's attention, it should use the Mac's notification system (bouncing the icon in the dock) rather than stealing focus from whatever program is currently in the foreground.



This is a feature: LightWave first checks to see if you have any other software open that is more awesome than itself. If not, it brings itself to the foreground, so as to increase your happiness.

I'll see what I can do.

-Chilton

Scazzino
08-31-2006, 02:09 PM
This is a feature: LightWave first checks to see if you have any other software open that is more awesome than itself. If not, it brings itself to the foreground, so as to increase your happiness.

I'll see what I can do.

-Chilton

Good one! :jester:

I've heard "this is a feature" so many times before, about so many "issues", that as I started to read your response, I fell into the &^%$%%&^#....

[Whoops, just had LW steal focus from Safari again, which must not be worthy... Now I click back to Safari, so I can continue typing.]

As I was saying... before being so rudely interrupted by LW again... ;)

That as I started to read your response I was thinking, darn, he doesn't get it either... till I got to the punch line of course... and thought wow, not only does he get it, but he even has a sense of humor about things that are quite un-Mac like in LW...

:rock:

JeffRutan
08-31-2006, 03:13 PM
I am still seriously thinking Chilton needs a couple more brilliant comrades working with him there as well as an Apple system software guru and an Apple applications guru at his beckon call. There is so much to do in this app that it has to be overwhelming.

I think bug fixes, feature parity and performance parity with the PC version are just a given, but much easier said than done. A respectable Universal Binary version is also critical or how can you continue to claim to be Mac compatible when Apple doesn't produce PowerPC computers anymore? As a high-end app, LightWave must use all the hardware and OS resources it can to compete with other products in a flooded market, and I also assume 64 bit support for the Mac will be here by late next year not long after the release of Leopard.

Making LightWave more Mac like would really be satisfying to a lot of us, but frankly, if the core stuff doesn't work on the Mac with comparable performance, I would rather either run it on a PC or use another product that has better Mac support.

-Jeff

avkills
08-31-2006, 03:28 PM
Hmmm, everyone keeps wanting the interface to be more Mac like...I for one, just want part of the app to be Mac like; such as the attention icon bounce as was mentioned. The interface to me is fine. In fact, it makes it a lot easier to read with the font NOT being antialiased since there are so many buttons and what not. Speaking of buttons, one thing that would make it Mac like is to have the menus be re-arranged or setup by drag and drop, instead of how it is now (which looks insane so I don't ever fool with it).

I'm not sure what people mean by performance parity vs. Windows. As far as I can tell, LW performs pretty **** good on the Mac; and probably will so even more once the UB is shipping.

-mark

Chilton
08-31-2006, 04:03 PM
Hi Jeff,


I am still seriously thinking Chilton needs a couple more brilliant comrades working with him there as well as an Apple system software guru and an Apple applications guru at his beckon call. There is so much to do in this app that it has to be overwhelming.

Oh, it's not that bad, really. I actually have a lot of it working at this point. And a lot of the things people are asking for had already been added, or were being added when I asked. I just wanted to make sure I hadn't missed anything.



I think bug fixes, feature parity and performance parity with the PC version are just a given, but much easier said than done. A respectable Universal Binary version is also critical or how can you continue to claim to be Mac compatible when Apple doesn't produce PowerPC computers anymore?


All of the new features, bug fixes, etc., are being done in the Universal Binary version. I have no real intent to release an interim version. If at all possible, the next release will be the UB version.


As a high-end app, LightWave must use all the hardware and OS resources it can to compete with other products in a flooded market, and I also assume 64 bit support for the Mac will be here by late next year not long after the release of Leopard.


Sounds like a reasonable assumption ;-)


Making LightWave more Mac like would really be satisfying to a lot of us, but frankly, if the core stuff doesn't work on the Mac with comparable performance, I would rather either run it on a PC or use another product that has better Mac support.

I agree!

-Chilton

Scazzino
08-31-2006, 07:13 PM
After closing the render preview window I always get the beach-ball for about six seconds before the interface becomes responsive again. I didn't recall this delay in LW8.5 so I tested it and in 8.5 it's only about three seconds.

What's LW doing during this delay? Can whatever it's doing be done while the render status window is still up so that the user doesn't have to wait for it after dismissing the render status dialog? Six seconds doesn't sound like much, but it adds up when we have to do many F9 test renders.

:jam:

toby
09-01-2006, 12:21 AM
After closing the render preview window I always get the beach-ball for about six seconds before the interface becomes responsive again. I didn't recall this delay in LW8.5 so I tested it and in 8.5 it's only about three seconds.

What's LW doing during this delay? Can whatever it's doing be done while the render status window is still up so that the user doesn't have to wait for it after dismissing the render status dialog? Six seconds doesn't sound like much, but it adds up when we have to do many F9 test renders.


Sounds like what happens when you have a subpatch object set to different levels of display and render - I only have to wait 1 second on average, but if the subpatch settings are different, 2 seconds. I think LW is unloading all the ram it used, the more ram, the longer it takes. Just a guess :P

avkills
09-01-2006, 12:25 AM
I actually have something positive to say. ;) RAM usage in 9 seems a lot better than 8.5. I am pushing this 32bit RAM ceiling to the limit with my Hi-res earth scene, rendering nearly 3 million polys using APS on the Earth, Moon and Clouds. Not to mention I am using 650+ megs of image memory.

(I only have 3.5 GB, and am seriously thinking of getting 2GB more so I have a total of 5 GB; I'd need to ditch the 256MB pair)

-mark

3dworks
09-01-2006, 05:34 AM
...forgot to ask for xgrid support - that would be really amazing and extremely useful!

as for the request to make the interface graphic design more mac-like, please let the user decide by using 'skins'. i'm very happy with the non distracting, 'no frills' professional interface as it is. doesn't mean it can't be improved, but this is not so mac specific, in my eyes. but if someone prefers icons, maybe there should be something for him/her.

Scazzino
09-12-2006, 08:39 AM
Not sure if this has been mentioned yet, but the cursors in LW don't behave in a proper "Mac like" way. They often fail to change back to the arrow pointer when leaving a LW window, making the cursor very difficult to see against normal Mac OS X windows. Cursor changes are also tied to the wrong events which can provide confusing feedback to the user.

It seems the cursor currently gets reset to the arrow when moved over the blank portions of a LW window GUI around the edges. However this often fails to reset the cursor to the arrow pointer if the user moves the cursor very quickly off of a LW window. For instance if you open the main layout window and make it smaller than the whole screen (or place it on the left screen of a dual monitor setup) and place the cursor in the 3D viewport you get the typical LW white cross cursor. Now quickly move the cursor off the LW window to the right. It passes quickly over the right edge of the window and fails to get reset to the arrow pointer. It remains the white cross and is now difficult to see against the normal Mac OS X windows, which are mostly white.

Another cursor issue is that the cursor modes should really be tied to keydown events rather than to mouse move events. For instance if I'm going to pan a Modeler 3D viewport with option-drag, the cursor should change to the pan cursor when I press the option key to signify that any subsequent motion will pan the viewport. Currently the cursor doesn't change to the pan cursor until the mouse is actually moved. Then also press the control key (in addition to the option key which is already down) again the cursor doesn't change to the zoom cursor failing to alert the user that any subsequent motion will zoom the viewport. It only changes to the zoom cursor when the user actually moves the mouse... This delayed cursor changing only provides the user with visual feedback when they move the mouse which performs the action, thereby informing the user what mode they are in only AFTER they've performed an action rather than BEFORE they perform the action when actually entering the mode with the keypress itself. Virtually any other Mac app I have that uses key modifiers for different mouse modes will change the cursor on keydown rather than on mousemove such as in Photoshop, Illustrator, FreeHand, etc...

These aren't major issues, but are little GUI things that make LW not quite as Mac friendly as it could be...

Darth Mole
09-12-2006, 10:37 AM
This has sort of been covered before, but the best feature you could implement is rock-solid stability.

The sort of stability where you can forget to save for half an hour and aren't punished by it.

The sort of stability where you go "oh, it MUST have been that plug-in then, because LW never crashes".

The sort of stability which means that you can just relax and have the freedom to be creative, rather then worrying about having image files in the right format or clicking on things in the right order.

3dworks
09-12-2006, 12:34 PM
another useful thing would be: complete drag and drop support from the mac to lightwave: drag an LWO into the open layout project window or viewport to add it to the scene. drag a surface preset on your mac onto a selected surface and voila', the surface is applied. drag a surface out of the surface editor's list to somewhere on the mac and the corresponding surface is written to this path with the surface name. etc. etc.

speaking of surfaces, another big GUI whish (but not mac specific) would be the ability to reorder and sort the surfaces in the surface list.

cheers

markus

eblu
09-12-2006, 12:36 PM
I just lost 8 hours of work due to some glitch in modeler.
i saved my object moved to another layer and began working on new details for it. Modeler started choking (on around 6800 polys), and responding poorly to mouse clicks. I immediately stopped and waited 2 minutes for it to catch up to itself, meanwhile any Number of things happened with No feedback. I hit "undo" until all traces of the mess modeler had wrought with the geometry in the active layer were gone. then I hit save, just in case.

a few minutes later I switched back to the layer in which the bulk of my object existed, never in the background, never active in any of this. it was completely ruined. it had run a bevel command on every polygon in the model.

I expect this to never happen again. I expect modeler to keep up with me (I have less than 27 k polys, even with every one of them beveled.) and if it can't keep up with me, I expect it to NEVER act on hidden layers, and when I tell it to undo something, It had better undo EVERYTHING.

Chilton
09-12-2006, 01:14 PM
Hi,

Currently we store temp files in the hidden MacOS Temp folder. When you crash, the last state of the files is sometimes preserved in those files.

Would you prefer that temp files were stored somewhere more accessible?

Eblu, was the hub running when this crashed? I know the hub is the root of most of our users' troubles, and I also know how important it is. I'm just curious.

-Chilton

eblu
09-12-2006, 01:34 PM
nope. the hub was Not running. this was all inside modeler.
see my pet peeve thread from yesterday. the hub is broken.

are you saying something other than the hub stores these hidden files?

i think it would make sense to save the temp files into ~/Library/Application Support/Lightwave
and just put a content directory there.

munky
09-12-2006, 02:04 PM
Hi Chilton,

it would be nice to have something like C4 destruct (I think) or Crackit; that is native to Lw as the aforementioned don't work on the Mac. I know that C4 definitely doesn't and I can't get crackit to work ( maybe it is just me) but it would be handy now that we have Dynamics to be able to chop up objects for destruction.

perhaps this should be in feature requests

regards

paul

rdxl9
09-25-2006, 08:37 PM
An applications' features are useless if the application is un-usable, do to crashing. How about working on stability versus more features.
Lightwave 9 is completely and I mean completely not useable for me. I keep trying to use it, and get so frustrated by the constant crashing that I am getting ready to just sell it and move on better apps.

I am beyond upset with this.

Chilton
09-25-2006, 09:09 PM
Hi rdxl9,


An applications' features are useless if the application is un-usable, do to crashing. How about working on stability versus more features.
Lightwave 9 is completely and I mean completely not useable for me. I keep trying to use it, and get so frustrated by the constant crashing that I am getting ready to just sell it and move on better apps.

I am beyond upset with this.

I hear you. Stability is my #1 concern for the UB version.

-Chilton

toby
09-25-2006, 09:36 PM
An applications' features are useless if the application is un-usable, do to crashing. How about working on stability versus more features.
Lightwave 9 is completely and I mean completely not useable for me. I keep trying to use it, and get so frustrated by the constant crashing that I am getting ready to just sell it and move on better apps.

I am beyond upset with this.
In the meantime, can you tell us about your system rdxl9? And what kinds of trouble you're having? I'm willing to bet that we can find several ways to improve your stability - many of us are running pretty smooth.

Puguglybonehead
09-26-2006, 12:34 AM
OK, I'm just adding my voice to others' requests and opinions that have already been said here.

I'm fairly happy with LW's stability on the Mac. It's not as rock-solid as C4D was when I last used it, but it's a d*mned-sight better than other 3D apps I've used on the Mac. However, if it can be improved, that would be great!:)

My main issue is the lack of plugins being ported to Mac. If something could be done to make it easier for developers to do this, (meaning, they would have no excuse not to) I would be much happier. Hopefully the UB version will make this possible?

OpenGL needs modernizing. LW on Mac is way behind, in this respect.

It would be nice if the promised new technologies of Leopard find their way into Lightwave.

Darth Mole
09-26-2006, 01:39 AM
An applications' features are useless if the application is un-usable, do to crashing. How about working on stability versus more features.
Lightwave 9 is completely and I mean completely not useable for me.

Do you use the Hub? My LW has ben much better since I disabled it. What sort of thing are you working on, what types of image files? Also, don't forget to send your crash reports to Chilton - if you've incovered something nasty, better he knows about it.

LW9 isn't super-stable for me, but neither is it as bad as yours sounds. And certainly I can work in Modeller pretty much all day without problems.

juanjgon
09-26-2006, 03:57 AM
It is nice to see that mac users like me have finaly a real support from Newtek ... i am really happy with it. Looking forward to new UB version.

I have only one request, the big one i can see from PC to Mac ... please, make OpenGL visualization as fast as posible, it is really a pain now for me ... in both Modeler and Layout ...

jeremyhardin
09-26-2006, 04:16 AM
Ooh. Big one. Make the text files that LW Mac uses (like Configs, Etc.) have Mac Line Endings!

I should be able to edit configs in my normal text editors without screwing up all of the configs. Editing the configs now in a normal text editor damages them.

Chilton
09-26-2006, 05:21 AM
Ooh. Big one. Make the text files that LW Mac uses (like Configs, Etc.) have Mac Line Endings!

I should be able to edit configs in my normal text editors without screwing up all of the configs. Editing the configs now in a normal text editor damages them.

So... you'd like to be able to edit the config files on the same computer you're using them. Sounds like a major feature request. Maybe wait for LW10 on that one.

:tongue:

-Chilton

Chilton
09-26-2006, 05:22 AM
It is nice to see that mac users like me have finaly a real support from Newtek ... i am really happy with it. Looking forward to new UB version.

I have only one request, the big one i can see from PC to Mac ... please, make OpenGL visualization as fast as posible, it is really a pain now for me ... in both Modeler and Layout ...

I will see what I can do. It does seem to be a bit slower than it could be.

-Chilton

juanjgon
09-26-2006, 05:25 AM
Thanks Chilton for your support :)

Other thing ... i am not sure if anybody else say this before, but please, i cant select items in layout by picking over it unless they are in bounding box ... this is a pain too ....

Chilton
09-26-2006, 05:35 AM
OK, I'm just adding my voice to others' requests and opinions that have already been said here.

I'm fairly happy with LW's stability on the Mac. It's not as rock-solid as C4D was when I last used it, but it's a d*mned-sight better than other 3D apps I've used on the Mac. However, if it can be improved, that would be great!:)


Then great it shall be.


My main issue is the lack of plugins being ported to Mac. If something could be done to make it easier for developers to do this, (meaning, they would have no excuse not to) I would be much happier. Hopefully the UB version will make this possible?


One myth about the Intel chips is that it makes it possible to run PC plug-ins on the Mac. This is not the case (and I know you're not asking for that, but I thought I'd mention it here anyway). But the existence of free developer tools will definitely simplify the plug-in building process.


OpenGL needs modernizing. LW on Mac is way behind, in this respect.

So I hear.


It would be nice if the promised new technologies of Leopard find their way into Lightwave.

Any forward looking comments regarding LightWave and Leopard are strictly under NDA right now, so I can't say too much there.

However, it is high time many Mac specific technologies found their way into the LW user interface. For example, here are some of the features of the UB version's UI...
1) Metal windows everwhere.
2) Instead of drab box icons, we're using the Aqua 'default' buttons for everything. It really makes the UI 'come alive' to see a hundred pulsing blue buttons all the time.
3) Some other apps have slightly translucent windows. We're going one further, and have made all of the windows, including the main LW window, 50% transparent. So you can see all of your other apps' windows while you're working!
4) Lots of UI sounds. Every time your mouse passes over an object, you get a 'tire screech' sound. Every time it passes over a light, you get a 'broken glass' sound. Etc. It's AWESOME. Especially if you have surround sound on.
5) Giant, animated 3D contextual menu makes it 'fun' to try to select the option you want.
6) Animated Helper LightWave logo. Think Microsoft Paper Clip, only in 3D, and more awesomer.

I could go on, but I don't want to give too much away!!!

-Chilton

Weepul
09-26-2006, 05:36 AM
A new feature request type dealy:

A "Make content folder" button in the save dialog, that would act just like the "New folder" button, except it would also automatically create the contained scenes, objects, and images folders. A nice easy little organization helper. :)


Ooh. Big one. Make the text files that LW Mac uses (like Configs, Etc.) have Mac Line Endings!

I should be able to edit configs in my normal text editors without screwing up all of the configs. Editing the configs now in a normal text editor damages them.:foreheads

I'd found an app that will convert between different format line breaks, and can batch process, and is free - search on VersionTracker or whichever Mac software update site you prefer...sorry that I don't remember the name; I'm not presently on my own computer. :(

I needed this program to use the output from a command-line app with LScript - the program outputted (outputted? output?) text files with Unix format line breaks, and LScript couldn't work with them (Mac format worked fine).

Scazzino
09-26-2006, 06:53 AM
I also agree that LW should be able to use either PC or Mac line endings.

I'd found an app that will convert between different format line breaks, and can batch process, and is free - search on VersionTracker or whichever Mac software update site you prefer...sorry that I don't remember the name; I'm not presently on my own computer. :(
In the mean time you can use the FREE UB TextWrangler (http://www.barebones.com/products/textwrangler/index.shtml) to edit them on the Mac.

3dworks
09-26-2006, 07:19 AM
....

However, it is high time many Mac specific technologies found their way into the LW user interface. For example, here are some of the features of the UB version's UI...
1) Metal windows everwhere.
2) Instead of drab box icons, we're using the Aqua 'default' buttons for everything. It really makes the UI 'come alive' to see a hundred pulsing blue buttons all the time.
3) Some other apps have slightly translucent windows. We're going one further, and have made all of the windows, including the main LW window, 50% transparent. So you can see all of your other apps' windows while you're working!
4) Lots of UI sounds. Every time your mouse passes over an object, you get a 'tire screech' sound. Every time it passes over a light, you get a 'broken glass' sound. Etc. It's AWESOME. Especially if you have surround sound on.
5) Giant, animated 3D contextual menu makes it 'fun' to try to select the option you want.
6) Animated Helper LightWave logo. Think Microsoft Paper Clip, only in 3D, and more awesomer.

I could go on, but I don't want to give too much away!!!

-Chilton

:lol:

i hope you didn't forget some nice animated bouncing dock effects for the hub and a dashboard widget which warns about any imminent crash of lightwave :)

eidetiken
09-26-2006, 07:44 AM
Don't forget the AH_CelShader plugin and others that seem to be missing in v9 for Mac. I seem to be missing a few plugins when loading up scenes from the v9 content I downloaded. Would also be nice not to have to type in file extensions whenever I save something.

dsol
09-26-2006, 07:55 AM
"It looks like you're trying to model a metal ball on a chequered floor?"

:D

Scazzino
09-26-2006, 08:08 AM
I could go on, but I don't want to give too much away!!!

Sounds awesome!!!

I'm especially looking forward to the cool sound effects like tire screeches... Now that's innovation!!! ;)

Darth Mole
09-26-2006, 09:05 AM
However, it is high time many Mac specific technologies found their way into the LW user interface. For example, here are some of the features of the UB version's UI...
1) Metal windows everwhere.
2) Instead of drab box icons, we're using the Aqua 'default' buttons for everything. It really makes the UI 'come alive' to see a hundred pulsing blue buttons all the time.
3) Some other apps have slightly translucent windows. We're going one further, and have made all of the windows, including the main LW window, 50% transparent. So you can see all of your other apps' windows while you're working!
4) Lots of UI sounds. Every time your mouse passes over an object, you get a 'tire screech' sound. Every time it passes over a light, you get a 'broken glass' sound. Etc. It's AWESOME. Especially if you have surround sound on.
5) Giant, animated 3D contextual menu makes it 'fun' to try to select the option you want.
6) Animated Helper LightWave logo. Think Microsoft Paper Clip, only in 3D, and more awesomer.

I could go on, but I don't want to give too much away!!!

You worry me.

avkills
09-26-2006, 10:02 AM
"It looks like you're trying to model a metal ball on a chequered floor?"

:D

That is friggin hilarious. I also liked your GUI improvements list Chilton... I can't wait. ;)

-mark

Chilton
09-26-2006, 10:15 AM
dsol,

Beautiful !

-Chilton

jeremyhardin
09-26-2006, 10:17 AM
I also agree that LW should be able to use either PC or Mac line endings.

In the mean time you can use the FREE UB TextWrangler (http://www.barebones.com/products/textwrangler/index.shtml) to edit them on the Mac.

Have you tried it with LW's configs? Because Smultron gives me every line ending option I could want, but LW still freaks out like I've removed ALL the line endings regardless. I don't know what the issue is.

Scazzino
09-26-2006, 10:32 AM
Have you tried it with LW's configs? Because Smultron gives me every line ending option I could want, but LW still freaks out like I've removed ALL the line endings regardless. I don't know what the issue is.

I used to use it, but now usually use TextWrangler's big brother, BBEdit. But I've even used the Mac OS X included version of TextEdit without any problems. Just make sure you disable the "add .txt extension" option since a ".txt" extension will confuse LightWave... [That should get fixed BTW]

Actually I just checked my current config files in BBEdit and they ARE using Mac line endings without any problems...

:thumbsup:

jeremyhardin
09-26-2006, 10:39 AM
I used to use it, but now usually use TextWrangler's big brother, BBEdit. But I've even used the Mac OS X included version of TextEdit without any problems. Just make sure you disable the "add .txt extension" option since a ".txt" extension will confuse LightWave... [That should get fixed BTW]

Actually I just checked my current config files in BBEdit and they ARE using Mac line endings without any problems...

:thumbsup:

Really? Try adding "StartupCommand ClearScene" to the beginning and hitting enter using text edit. And I assume you're using LW9? Editing "LightWave Layout 9 Prefs"? Because doing that simple thing raises errors in LW when I use TextEdit. And when I use Smultron, which tries to emulate the existing line endings...it changes all the line endings and LW sees none (and thus the Layout configs are wrong).

rdxl9
09-26-2006, 05:37 PM
Hi,

If anyone can help me with this problem, I would certainly appreciatte it. LW 8.5 ran fine by the way.

I have G5 Dual 2.5 with 4gb ram. ATI Radeon 9600 XT

LW 9. and I also use Fprime (latest version)

I have disabled the hub and no longer use iTunes when I am "trying" to work in LW. This all helped a little bit, but by no means am I able to use LW for anything.

Please let me know what other info I could provide so someone can help me with this problem.

Chilton
09-26-2006, 08:13 PM
Hi rdxl9,


Hi,
LW 9. and I also use Fprime (latest version)


Alright, let's start with the basics.
1) What are you trying to do?
2) What is it actually doing?

If we're talking about crashes here, make sure you email me the crash logs ( [email protected] ) so they get fixed.*

If we're talking about unexpected behaviors, overall speed differences, etc., one of our forum regulars can probably address the issue faster than I.

-Chilton

munky
09-27-2006, 04:25 AM
On a less serious note,

I thought Chilton might want this to put the large amount of p$ss he took yesterday in. Or should I have made a bucket!
I laughed so much a little bit of wee came out. (thats the bit in the bottom)




made my day

paul

Chilton
09-27-2006, 07:39 AM
Hi Paul,

I can't tell how large that is, so I'm hesitant to use it for its intended purpose. It looks about right though. Can you please place an object next to it, for reference? Perhaps an elephant?

;-)

Thank you!
-Chilton

Scazzino
09-27-2006, 07:43 AM
Really? Try adding "StartupCommand ClearScene" to the beginning and hitting enter using text edit. And I assume you're using LW9? Editing "LightWave Layout 9 Prefs"? Because doing that simple thing raises errors in LW when I use TextEdit. And when I use Smultron, which tries to emulate the existing line endings...it changes all the line endings and LW sees none (and thus the Layout configs are wrong).

Yup, I'm using LW9.

Opening LightWave Layout 9 Prefs in BBEdit and checking the format shows it's already in Macintosh format (see screen shot)

I just added StartupCommand ClearScene to the beginning in BBEdit and it worked fine in LW9. Asked if I really wanted to clear the scene and then cleared it.

I then tried the same in the free TextWrangler and it also worked fine.

I then tried the same in TextEdit and it did generate an error:
Unknown command: "ClearScene FileRequesterServer".
Which looks like the added line ending was incorrect.

Whenever I've edited the configs in TextEdit I was just changing existing values such as Memory Segment Limit or Number of Threads and not adding new line endings... which explains why I never got an error...

So it looks like the FREE TextWrangler (http://www.barebones.com/products/textwrangler/index.shtml) or even more powerful BBEdit (http://www.barebones.com/products/bbedit/index.shtml) are the best bet for editing configs on the Mac.

:D

Scazzino
09-27-2006, 07:58 AM
OK I ran a few more tests...

I opened the config file and resaved it out in all three formats Mac, DOS and UNIX from BBEdit.

The Mac and DOS formats both worked fine but the UNIX format generated the same error we got when adding line endings in TextEdit, so it looks like TextEdit uses UNIX line endings rather than Mac line endings...

Creating a new document in TextEdit and then opening it in BBEdit confirms that it uses UNIX formatting which explains the errors when adding new lines...

Chilton
09-27-2006, 08:01 AM
So it looks like the FREE TextWrangler (http://www.barebones.com/products/textwrangler/index.shtml) or even more powerful BBEdit (http://www.barebones.com/products/bbedit/index.shtml) are the best bet for editing configs on the Mac for now. Eventually it would be nice if LightWave could scan the file first to determine which line endings it uses before parsing it, I've done that myself in cross platform Director CD-ROM projects and it isn't all that difficult to program...

:D

Bah, you ask too much of me. I'll see if I can pawn it off on someone else ;-)

-Chilton

Scazzino
09-27-2006, 08:18 AM
Bah, you ask too much of me. I'll see if I can pawn it off on someone else ;-)

-Chilton

Actually, I ran some more tests here and it looks like it may already be doing that partially. It seems to work OK if the config file is in either Mac or DOS format, but not UNIX... Maybe it could be made to work with any of those three formats... that would make life easier for those editing the config files by hand...

At least until we have a fully featured config editor right in the program that makes hand editing config files obsolete of course... like most other Mac programs... ;) ;)

Scazzino
09-27-2006, 08:25 AM
Here's a very simple set of routines I use in Director's Lingo to manage cross-platform line endings, maybe something similar could be done in LightWave so it works with a file using any one of the three types of line endings... [EDIT: While you're at it (or whoever it gets pawned off on ;-), it might be a good idea to make LW also work with or without a ".txt" extension on the config or cmdLine files as well. ;)]

-- Platform Conversion Services (line endings) [part of my DreamObjects, LingOOP framework (http://dreamlight.com/webshop/utilities/dreamobjects.html)]
global LF -- linefeed character used in unix or Windows files
global CRLF -- Return & Linefeed characters as Windows line ends

on new Me
-- ...
-- create other line ending globals similar to the constant RETURN
LF = numToChar(10)
CRLF = RETURN & LF
-- ...
end

--

on detectLineEndings Me, textString
-- given a text string it will scan for line endings
-- and return the actual line ending string
-- RETURN (Mac), LF (Unix), CRLF (Win)
-- Director's internal strings are all Macintosh strings (RETURN), even on the PC...
-- unless you read text from a file on a different platform.

hasReturn = textString contains RETURN
hasLF = textString contains LF

if hasReturn AND hasLF then lineEnd = CRLF
else if hasReturn then lineEnd = RETURN
else if hasLF then lineEnd = LF
else lineEnd = EMPTY

return lineEnd

end

--

on convertLineEndingsTo Me, newEnd, textString
-- convert line endings to newEnd

-- first determine which line endings are already there
oldEnd = Me.detectLineEndings( textString )

if oldEnd <> newEnd then -- need to convert

textString = Me.findAndReplace( oldEnd, newEnd, textString )

end if

return textString

end

--

on convertToPlatform Me, newPlatform, textString
-- given #Mac, #Unix or #Win convert to the appropriate line endings...

case newPlatform of
#Mac: lineEnd = RETURN
#Unix: lineEnd = LF
#Win: lineEnd = CRLF
end case

return Me.convertLineEndingsTo( lineEnd, textString )
end

munky
09-27-2006, 11:03 AM
Phew Chilton,

luckily the corner shop had one left!







regards

paul

parm
09-28-2006, 05:19 AM
Another one for your list:

LScript Commander in Layout needs to be fixed on the Mac.

Here's an idea, why not take the opportunity to make it work the same way in Modeler as well.

Macros in Modeler :D

jeremyhardin
09-28-2006, 05:24 AM
Another one for your list:

LScript Commander in Layout needs to be fixed on the Mac.

Here's an idea, why not take the opportunity to make it work the same way in Modeler as well.

Macros in Modeler :D

quoted for absolute and total agreement.

jeremyhardin
09-28-2006, 05:26 AM
while we're at it...how about fixing .hdr and other FP savers on mac?

Wickster
09-29-2006, 12:54 AM
Chilton,

Somebody mentioned a way to map the mouse here earlier, on the PC i've been using Auto Hotkey, an open source hotkey-a-majiggy. is it possible to port this on the mac? the source code is available on the site itself. and i think the creator wouldn't mind if you or somebody can compile a mac version of his program provided you give him a copy too and say..."well a lot of LW PC users use this so i hope you don't mind me converting this for the mac" :)

here is the site, the source-code is link on the downloads page:
http://www.autohotkey.com/

dglidden
09-29-2006, 10:33 PM
Perfromance, Performance, Performance . . .

Stability, Stability, Stability . . .

Equivalancy, Equivalancy, Equivalancy . . .

I know this is from early in the thread, but it's worth repeating, only I'm gonna reorder it a bit:

Stability, Stability, Stability!

Equivalency, Equivalency, Equivalency!

Performance, Performance, Performance!

Stability must be the first thing in that list.

There's no point in having a feature that exists in the Windows version if it crashes LW every time I use it on my mac. I'd rather it just didn't crash rather than having a buggy [email protected]#$% port of some plugin or feature or other.

Same thing goes with performance. I don't need to hear that LW can now crash on my mac 250% faster! :)

Once it's stable, and I mean really, really stable, then you can start adding the features that are left out from the port from Windows. Once you've got all the features in, then you can start working on making it really scream.

Before even talking about anything else I want from my mac version, these just need to be addressed. Once the basic issues are ironed out, some of the things I want LW-on-Mac to do are things that have mostly been covered already:

Make it "more mac-like" in many ways that have already been outlined in this thread. Some of my highlights: give me "real" Mac-like menus and Mac dialogues and widgets; Qmaster or better yet Xgrid; handle mac multi-display systems better. Important to note, though, I DON'T WANT it to be an Aqua app. I agree with Chilton that it's just plain not appropriate, for so many reasons. But I do expect it to at least look like it could be a native Mac app and not just an ugly, ugly port.

Please just fix the OpenGL performance on Mac! I mean ... wow.

64-bit

It's hardly mac-specific, but since all the Intel macs now use at least one Dual-core proc, we need better multithreadedness in the app EVERYWHERE. I don't want half my mac sitting idle while I'm working in LW once the UB version is out.

Take advantage of the fact that the Mac is based on a UNIX core and give me command-line tools for anything that can be done from the command-line. I'd wager that probably at least a few LW/Mac users are such because they came from the SGI world or because they can't run LW/Linux. Give us our UNIX!

Re: third-party plugins. I don't know how far NT has any desire to help independent developers, but if there were a way they could provide some kind of "build farm" for plugin writers that would let them submit code to compile on Win/Mac and test for compatibility would give them a better chance to be able to market to both sets of users and less chance that us Mac users are left with our thumbs stuck in unpleasant places and nothing else to do.

I've been a LW user since v4 and it's been an on-again, off-again type relationship the whole time for one reason or another. LW has grown from that cute little mutt puppy into the big ugly mutt dog who you still love because you've had it for so long but you really just wish it'd stop bringing in the dead squirrels and piddling on the carpet again right when you think it's gotten over its problems.

Honestly at this point I'm only using LW because it IS available for the Mac. I'm one of those "Windows haters" just because I've grown up using UNIX systems and I'm so much more productive with a UNIX box. Since I can't have my LW/Linux, I'm happy using LW/Mac. My Linux boxen are the big, beefy tanks, and my Mac is the elegant lovely box that I like to use for the day-to-day work, and I just want LW to behave like the elegant system it's on.

dsol
09-30-2006, 06:56 AM
Stability, Stability, Stability!

Equivalency, Equivalency, Equivalency!

Performance, Performance, Performance!

Stability must be the first thing in that list.

I absolutely agree - the number one failing of LW (though bear in mind I'm still using 8.5) is its flakeyness. it's by far the least stable of the "Pro" apps I use regularly. It's gotten to the point where I'm hitting save after almost every action, such is my (justified) paranoia of it crashing. Disabling the hub helps a lot, but it's still pretty unstable.


Make it "more mac-like" in many ways that have already been outlined in this thread. Some of my highlights: give me "real" Mac-like menus and Mac dialogues and widgets; Qmaster or better yet Xgrid; handle mac multi-display systems better. Important to note, though, I DON'T WANT it to be an Aqua app. I agree with Chilton that it's just plain not appropriate, for so many reasons. But I do expect it to at least look like it could be a native Mac app and not just an ugly, ugly port.

Yep, that would be very beneficial. I'm hoping that LW10 (or LWX if NT wants to be all cool, like!) will be primarily focused on a new UI and workflow improvements - see my earlier rant on this thread about object encapsulation. The recent upgrade of After Effects to version 7 was primarily about fixing the UI. It was completely overhauled and is now vastly superior and much much more efficient to work with. It also looks more professional now, which might sound shallow, but it *is* useful when you have clients looking over your shoulder! V6 of AE added tons of new features, but kept the interface largely identical to V5. V7 had just a few new features, but the fantastic new UI and workflow aids has made it IMHO the best upgrade in the product's history. I'd love to see a similarly enhanced and redesigned interface/workflow design in LWX!


Please just fix the OpenGL performance on Mac! I mean ... wow.

Not much I can say here beyond - yup! Is the new OGL code in LW9 using any of the virtual mem functionality of OGL2.0? I'm using a lot of video and image sequences in my LW projects at the moment and it's pretty slow (and unstable) previewing it in OGL as textures are shuttled on and off the video card. Maybe some kind of caching system for video clips might speed things up? Memory's pretty cheap these days and I've got 4gigs on my Quad :) Sorry - that's a feature request, I know. Sassen Frassen.


Take advantage of the fact that the Mac is based on a UNIX core and give me command-line tools for anything that can be done from the command-line. I'd wager that probably at least a few LW/Mac users are such because they came from the SGI world or because they can't run LW/Linux. Give us our UNIX!

And make Screamernet a proper terminal app too - but this has been covered already in this thread. I'm sure gears are in motion for that already (as part of the port to Xcode).

eidetiken
10-05-2006, 01:12 PM
Magnatized windows

Would be nice not having to forage for different open windows. Have them magnatized to each other as well as to the main window, and collapsable. With large monitors I can fit almost all of the modeler windows (layers, statistics, maps, surface editor, etc) to the right and left of the main window. Would be nice if I could collapse some windows not in use and expand them when I need them.

gatz
10-05-2006, 05:21 PM
I like the tabbed windows ala FinalCut and Adobe. I work with the Graph and scene editors on a second monitor and it's a pain to to work with when they're both filling the screen.

eidetiken
10-05-2006, 05:56 PM
you can do magnetic tabbed windows... add whatever windows you want

tabbed windows would be cool

Chilton
10-05-2006, 06:22 PM
Just FYI, I believe Adobe patented tabbed utility windows.

eidetiken
10-05-2006, 07:14 PM
I don't know about that. SolidThinking has tabbed utility windows that you can move externally or inside and to the right of the main program window.

Chilton
10-05-2006, 07:53 PM
Hi Eidetiken,


I don't know about that. SolidThinking has tabbed utility windows that you can move externally or inside and to the right of the main program window.

Adobe owns that patent, and they brought the smack down on Macromedia over it, waaay back in 2000. They won, and collected $2.8 million. Ka-CHING!

http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/05/03/016210&mode=thread

Of course, it is possible that SolidThinking (and everyone else using this concept) have legally licensed it from Adobe. But I suspect everyone else so far has fallen into the same category--not a big enough company to be worth suing. Or maybe Adobe wanted to knock Macromedia down a notch before making them a buyout offer. Who knows.

But AFAIK, $2.8 million isn't the kind of money NT has just laying around the office. At least not the last time I went ruffling through my coworkers' desks.

-Chilton

eidetiken
10-05-2006, 08:03 PM
Laughs, that figures.

I've seen several programs with variation of tabbed utility windows, depends on exactly what Adobe's patent includes and what it doesn't. I like Modo's utility sidebar.

gatz
10-06-2006, 02:18 AM
Patented. I was afraid of that. Apple's apps use something similiar, in fact the new AfterEffects looks more like an Apple app now. Are they walking a line or paying extortion. Maybe allow a CTRL click on the menu bar to toggle through a stack of windows. Anyone own that?

Kuzey
10-06-2006, 03:36 AM
tabbed windows would be cool

Would that be the same as what firefox and Safari etc. use because that does sound cool!!


:D

Kuzey

jeremyhardin
10-06-2006, 09:27 AM
Chilton...Would the move to UB make LWSN a terminal app? If so, wouldn't that give you the ability to launch the same app as many times as you wanted...because there can be multiple instances of Terminal open?

Just curious. Screamernet is something that's nice to be able to open more than once without copying the .app file for every instance. (like the .exe works in multiple dos windows on PC).

(i'm ashamed I've just asked for PC behavior. :o I'm leaving the mac forum now, at least till I can behave.)

Scazzino
10-06-2006, 09:31 AM
Hi Jeremy,

You'd still have to be able to differentiate between the different LWSN instances though, so each would read the proper job/ack files. This is currently done on the Mac by giving each LWSN instance a unique filename that loads a corresponding LWSN cmdLine file...

[EDIT: On second thought... I guess you'd just use different command line arguments when launching the LWSN instance. If it becomes a terminal app you wouldn't need the Mac cmdLine files any longer... ;)]

jeremyhardin
10-06-2006, 09:36 AM
right...but the job/ack files are passed at render. you can use one .exe file and specify different jobs. but on mac, you have to have different .app files AND different jobs

besides, most of my instances of LWSN are mode 3. And I'd like to have as many of those as I need without having to copy them for each.

To see what I'm after, run BG Render (http://jeremy.lwidof.net/lscript/#bg_render) for a few frames on PC. Then try to run it more than once on mac. You'll get nothing until the first one is finished.

Scazzino
10-06-2006, 09:43 AM
right...but the job/ack files are passed at render. you can use one .exe file and specify different jobs. but on mac, you have to have different .app files AND different jobs

besides, most of my instances of LWSN are mode 3. And I'd like to have as many of those as I need without having to copy them for each.
Sounds good. I use mode 2 though, since I'm usually running LWSN across the network... I just queue my jobs into the third-party controller (ScreamerNet Controller for Mac OSX and/or RenderFarm Commander) as they are ready and they get rendered... I find this most flexible too since I can reorder the current queue at any time, so if I need to render a new scene before one of the older ones finishes, I can just move it to the head of the queue...


To see what I'm after, run BG Render (http://jeremy.lwidof.net/lscript/#bg_render) for a few frames on PC. Then try to run it more than once on mac. You'll get nothing until the first one is finished.
Sorry, don't have LW installed on any PC's here... (that would be blasphemy... ;-)

jeremyhardin
10-06-2006, 09:51 AM
... I find this most flexible too since I can reorder the current queue at any time, so if I need to render a new scene before one of the older ones finishes, I can just move it to the head of the queue...


Fair enough...but with true commandline rendering, I could get that particular functionality from Batch Render LWSN (http://jeremy.lwidof.net/lscript/#batchrend), albeit on one machine. But with NO setup. Simple press of a button.

http://jeremy.lwidof.net/lscript/batchrend.jpg

I could get it working now, but the lscript would literally be duplicating LWSN.app and LWSN cmdline for every job in the queue. Which would be ridiculous, unstable, messy, and a little scary for large queues.

Scazzino
10-06-2006, 09:52 AM
right...but the job/ack files are passed at render.

I meant the job/ack command files that communicate with the controller (in mode 2), not the scene file that's being rendered... The job/ack files are specified when the LWSN instance is launched. Specified in the command line. But if LWSN were a command line terminal app, you could launch each instance with different job/ack file references in the command line that launches it and the Mac "cmdLine" files would no longer be necessary...

jeremyhardin
10-06-2006, 09:55 AM
right. that's how it works in true commandline functionality on 'that other operating system'. :D

and that's how I would like to see it on mac (only better and prettier of course). Perhaps with a doc icon progress bar, yes? :D

Scazzino
10-06-2006, 09:55 AM
Fair enough...but with true commandline rendering, I could get that particular functionality from Batch Render LWSN (http://jeremy.lwidof.net/lscript/#batchrend), albeit on one machine. But with NO setup. Simple press of a button.

How would you get a currently running mode 3 render to stop an old scene and start a new scene, then return to the old scene when the new scene finished?

Chilton
10-06-2006, 09:58 AM
Hi Jeremy,


Chilton...Would the move to UB make LWSN a terminal app? If so, wouldn't that give you the ability to launch the same app as many times as you wanted...because there can be multiple instances of Terminal open?

Just curious. Screamernet is something that's nice to be able to open more than once without copying the .app file for every instance. (like the .exe works in multiple dos windows on PC).

(i'm ashamed I've just asked for PC behavior. :o I'm leaving the mac forum now, at least till I can behave.)

Technically, you're asking for a Unix behavior. And yes, with the move to Mach-O, Screamer will be a command line app. And this isn't really 'new' news--in order to get to UB, we had to rewrite LW as a Mach app. That's the only way to do it. And that means it technically can be run from the commandline.

That's all I have to say about that, right now. I'll let you mull over the ramifications.

-Chilton

Scazzino
10-06-2006, 10:01 AM
Hi Jeremy,



Technically, you're asking for a Unix behavior. And yes, with the move to Mach-O, Screamer will be a command line app. And this isn't really 'new' news--in order to get to UB, we had to rewrite LW as a Mach app. That's the only way to do it. And that means it technically can be run from the commandline.

That's all I have to say about that, right now. I'll let you mull over the ramifications.

-Chilton

Sounds great...

BTW You "can" launch LWSN from the command line now. I forget the exact method, but you pass it as parameter to something in the OS, code fragment manager or something... I'll see if I can dig it out...

jeremyhardin
10-06-2006, 10:05 AM
How would you get a currently running mode 3 render to stop an old scene and start a new scene, then return to the old scene when the new scene finished?
spawn command returns process ids. at least in windows. on mac it returns nothing and officially doesn't even work. i just found out it does by fluke testing.

with the process id, you can terminate that process. you can then, at termination, detect the last completed rendered frame for that scene, and re-queue the scene at the bottom with the altered frame range based on what finished.

i have yet to support drag re-ordering in Batch Render LWSN (partially due to not being able to dev it on a mac and not having a consistent PC to add features to.

Scazzino
10-06-2006, 10:06 AM
spawn command returns process ids. at least in windows. on mac it returns nothing and officially doesn't even work. i just found out it does by fluke testing.

with the process id, you can terminate that process. you can then, at termination, detect the last completed rendered frame for that scene, and re-queue the scene at the bottom with the altered frame range based on what finished.

i have yet to support drag re-ordering in Batch Render LWSN (partially due to not being able to dev it on a mac and not having a consistent PC to add features to.

OK, but wouldn't it just be easier to use mode 2?

jeremyhardin
10-06-2006, 10:07 AM
Sounds great...

BTW You "can" launch LWSN from the command line now. I forget the exact method, but you pass it as parameter to something in the OS, code fragment manager or something... I'll see if I can dig it out...

You can launch, but only launch. it's parameters will only come from cmdline file right now.

Scazzino
10-06-2006, 10:11 AM
You can launch, but only launch. it's parameters will only come from cmdline file right now.
Right... here's the way to launch it anyway...
/System/Library/Frameworks/Carbon.framework/Versions/Current/Support/LaunchCFMApp LWSN

jeremyhardin
10-06-2006, 10:11 AM
OK, but wouldn't it just be easier to use mode 2?

Depends on your opinion of easier I suppose. Easier because I don't have to script it to be idiot proof.

But once it's all scripted, it works with buttons rather than setting up directories for job/ack communication, dealing with config information, etc.

you know? have you used BG Render? or gotten to Batch Render LWSN on PC? it's really quite easy. if you want to render it (or queue it), you press a button. it figures out the rest for you. When you're doing quick tests, it's quite nice to only have to press a button. I use BG render instead of F9 or F10 most times. Rendering without the interface taking up my resources is worth it...and I don't manage a single parameter of it (content directory, render range, configs, etc.) It just figures it out for me.

jeremyhardin
10-06-2006, 10:16 AM
Right... here's the way to launch it anyway...
/System/Library/Frameworks/Carbon.framework/Versions/Current/Support/LaunchCFMApp LWSN

perhaps I'm being daft, but why not just use open and then the path?:

open /Applications/NewTek/LightWave\ 3D\ 9/programs/LightWave

Scazzino
10-06-2006, 10:17 AM
Depends on your opinion of easier I suppose. Easier because I don't have to script it to be idiot proof.

But once it's all scripted, it works with buttons rather than setting up directories for job/ack communication, dealing with config information, etc.

I mean you could script it to use mode 2, which is designed for such interactive communication (rather than having to force quit instances and spawn new ones etc.) and just script the parts to setup the job/ack communication, config etc... Then you could just use buttons too and it would also work over the network... Similar to what Bruce Rayne did with RenderFarm Commander...

Scazzino
10-06-2006, 10:19 AM
perhaps I'm being daft, but why not just use open and then the path?:

open /Applications/NewTek/LightWave\ 3D\ 9/programs/LightWave

Not being daft at all, this was sent to me by someone trying to launch LWSN from within a C program I think... if you could use open in that context, that's fine... I wasn't doing this myself... just passing on info I received... I launch it from the Finder... ;)

jeremyhardin
10-06-2006, 10:39 AM
Good to know Chilton. That brings up interesting possibilities for Lightwave and Modeler launching as well then. :D :thumbsup:

Mike, I see what you're saying about using the job/ack system. And it would be usable with multiple computers I suppose. There are two reasons that I'm still not a fan...

1. I never liked the job/ack system. I think it was a very clever workaround for the limitations of Lightwave back in the day, (as was the Hub), but I think writing files to disk then reading them from disk is a slow and poor way to work. Or at least having the user configure it is. I mean, the configs have to be common, as does the content. Why then introduce a third place to go wrong? Just use hidden files in one of those locations. :shrug:

2. Why re-invent the wheel? And in Lscript no less? Batch Render is meant to be a click-add-easy way to manage batch rendering with no concept of how to set up network rendering or command line rendering. If Render Farm Commander is using -2 mode and doing the job well, I wouldn't venture to do the same thing. I think the final iteration of Batch Render will be similiar to Qmaster's interface. The ability to save, load, reorder, and render queues. But all from within Lightwave. And all without knowing a bit of scripting or LWSN syntax. (also Batch Render is uncompiled as a learning resource for Lscript. Some clever interface stuff in there, if I do say so myself. ;) )

I suppose I better check out Renderfarm Commander now so that I don't do just what I said I didn't want to do. Reinvent the wheel, that is. :thumbsup:

Scazzino
10-06-2006, 10:48 AM
Mike, I see what you're saying about using the job/ack system. And it would be usable with multiple computers I suppose. There are two reasons that I'm still not a fan...

Don't get me wrong... I'm not a "fan" of it either... it's just that mode 2 is already designed for interactive communication... though with a rather archaic implementation... but it does work quite well once it's up and running... :thumbsup:

I liked using Electric Image's network rendering system renderama. It was MUCH more Mac friendly, when it worked that is, it was a bit buggy the last time I used it quite a few years ago... but once you got around the bugs, it was quite useful.

Scazzino
10-06-2006, 10:56 AM
I suppose I better check out Renderfarm Commander now so that I don't do just what I said I didn't want to do. Reinvent the wheel, that is. :thumbsup:

Yes check it out. It's quite good. It can split a render across multiple LWSN instances and stitch it back together and it also has an auto-setup feature, but I'm not sure if those parts have been updated for LW9. I know Bruce was working on it, just not sure if it's ready yet...

Here it is: RenderFarm Commander (http://www.brucerayne.com/renderfarm.html)

I also use ScreamerNet Controller for Mac OS X (http://www.catalystproductions.cc/screamernet/). I like its ability to save the current render queue and resurrect it in the case of a crash or power outage...

I basically just keep my farm rendering 24/7 and toss jobs on it as I need them. I can bump anything to the front of the queue at any point that I need something quicker than anything that may already be rendering and it just keeps on rendering...

:thumbsup:

jeremyhardin
10-06-2006, 11:03 AM
Thanks Mike. I'll give it a look.

Oh Chilton, New Mac Ideas for Lightwave OS integration:

1. Have (OPTIONAL!!) Spotlight support for within scene files. So if you search for "Car_R_Axle", it will return the scene file with the null named "Car_R_Axle(13)".

2. New render viewers that integrate with mac (like with new iChat Background feature, for exampe). Basically, in the image viewer options, after DV, have other mac apps listed there. So you could render to Preview.app, iChat Background, etc.

3. Content Manager can archive the content for you using the OS's archiver. So you end up with a .zip or .sit right away.

4. Transparency of LW windows (using Core Image?). so you can see reference behind LW on the desktop or in another app. Perhaps even per-panel transparency controls. I might want the main window completely opaque and the Scene editor at 50%.

5. Dock icon selections like the Activity Monitor. Render progress, last F9, last Ram Preview, Scene File iteration version,

Let me see if I can think of any more. Don't forget the iLife integration requests I made earlier. :D

jeremyhardin
10-06-2006, 11:25 AM
6. Right click dock commands (like Render Frame, Render Sequence, Save Incremental, Update Image Files, Update Object Files, Update All External References (images, objects, hopefully motions, lights, camera, etc. someday too), and those are just Layout. The Update Images could apply to modeler too. I'd have to think more about Modeler right-click dock commands. But you get the idea.

jeremyhardin
10-06-2006, 12:16 PM
7. Ties into mail for Renders. (Mail notifications) Same for both LW and LWSN.

8. Media browser ala iLife. So you open the media tab and can import a picture from your iPhoto Library, or iTunes, or your Movies folder, etc. Same basic functionality as having access to the media in iDVD. Only in Lightwave. :D

9. Render to iTunes Library. Automatically sets the settings to be syncable with video ipods and then imports it into iTunes for proper organizing and syncing.

Scazzino
10-06-2006, 12:20 PM
9. Render to iTunes Library. Automatically sets the settings to be syncable with video ipods and then imports it into iTunes for proper organizing and syncing.

Wow, this stuff all sounds great Jeremy! :thumbsup:

But to be honest, at the moment, I'd even be thrilled with very simple things, like just getting audio to work properly in Layout at all on the Mac... ;)

eblu
10-06-2006, 02:02 PM
Wow, this stuff all sounds great Jeremy! :thumbsup:

But to be honest, at the moment, I'd even be thrilled with very simple things, like just getting audio to work properly in Layout at all on the Mac... ;)

I second the idea of SIMPLE things... ie: fixing whats already there and broken.

jeremyhardin
10-06-2006, 03:06 PM
I second the idea of SIMPLE things... ie: fixing whats already there and broken.

Haha. Me too eblu and Mike. Me too. But Chilton said don't hold back, so there's no point in, well, holding back ideas. I hope it's a given that I'm not saying...:agree:

"Please give me new shiny mac-features. Oh, and don't bother fixing all those broken things. Once I get email notification of my crashed renders, I'll be satisfied." :D :hey:

jeremyhardin
10-11-2006, 04:58 AM
couple things...

First, I just watched an episode of MacBreak video (Chilton, I assume you're familiar with it?), and they show how to use Applescript to generate a media browser like that in iLife. So if UB Lightwave has ANY sort of applescript tie ins, my request for media browsing above would be completely doable.

Secondly, in Particle Properties, EditFX, the EditFrame doesn't work when set to all. All still functions like after.

Cheers!

Tesselator
10-11-2006, 06:57 PM
To answer a question asked a few times now, I am looking for Mac specific requests. General LightWave features, design decisions, APIs, etc., are not something I have, or even pretend to have, a say in.


Sure I love the Mac F-Keys for getting apps out of the way in order to work
with the OS, load other apps or etc. Sure I can press Ctrl+F1 in modeler or
Tab in layout first before minimizing either to the Doc... But it sure would be
nice if that little yellow button would do that for me. So my request is to
have that little yellow "-" button in the top left of the Main App window for
both Layout and Modeler, minimise all open pannels first. Maybe a quicky
script toggle that does the Ctrl+F1 or Tab thing 1st before minimizing and
again after restoring.

I know this is a tiny request but being new to Mac that's all I have for you
at this time.

Yeah the UB will be uber-sweet when it gets here! I think soon considering
the new pricing and proformance of the Intel Macs, that all the Gx boxes
will be antiquated to to their place on the shelves of history.

The current Price:Proformance:Quality ratio of the higher end Intel Macs
exceed that of even the roll-your-own pee-cees. From my investigations
it reads like: For the Same Power + More stability + More Features + Less
Viruses = 25% discount over the cheepest PeeCee equivalent. I don't see
this changing and I think it's great that we have guys like Chilton working
for NewTek! Now if we can just get that Toaster over here on the Mac! :)

Weepul
10-11-2006, 08:44 PM
Sorry Tess, that's not the way things work on the Mac. ;) The main window is a separate window, and even if you can't think of a time you'd want to minimize it without also minimizing all the other palettes, it's the way it should work, to the best of my knowledge.

To get rid of LW (or any program) as a whole while leaving it running, I hide it. :) (Having been used to that paradigm since the days of OS 7 helps it seem natural, I suppose...)

jeremyhardin
10-12-2006, 07:07 AM
7. Ties into mail for Renders. (Mail notifications) Same for both LW and LWSN.

8. Media browser ala iLife. So you open the media tab and can import a picture from your iPhoto Library, or iTunes, or your Movies folder, etc. Same basic functionality as having access to the media in iDVD. Only in Lightwave. :D

9. Render to iTunes Library. Automatically sets the settings to be syncable with video ipods and then imports it into iTunes for proper organizing and syncing.
... and continuing...


10. Automator Actions for Lightwave/Modeler.

11. When rendering to Quicktime, having the option to have Markers on the layout timeline become Chapter Markers (for recognition in FCP, iMovie, or iDVD).

jeremyhardin
10-12-2006, 07:22 AM
12. Support for the same length of filename as the OS. Right now, long file names in the image editor make the sequence unreadable (at least in any intelligible order).

Scazzino
10-12-2006, 07:40 AM
Give us a preview options panel like on the Windows version, only give us even more options...

Let us set the QuickTime compression, the preview dimensions, and have the preview itself in its own QuickTime window rather than locked to the viewport. That way once the preview is finished we don't have to keep unloading and loading it, to view it as we make changes to the scene. Currently I always have to save the preview to a file and then open it in QuickTime so I can keep referring to it while I refine the animation, which is easier than constantly ending the preview and reloading it which then locks out all of layout.

:D

jeremyhardin
10-12-2006, 10:01 AM
Give us a preview options panel like on the Windows version, only give us even more options...

Let us set the QuickTime compression, the preview dimensions, and have the preview itself in its own QuickTime window rather than locked to the viewport. That way once the preview is finished we don't have to keep unloading and loading it, to view it as we make changes to the scene. Currently I always have to save the preview to a file and then open it in QuickTime so I can keep referring to it while I refine the animation, which is easier than constantly ending the preview and reloading it which then locks out all of layout.

:D

Quoted for agreement. And while we're at it, propigate this change to Viper (which plays previews at hyperspeed, forcing me to save previews to a quicktime file and open it in the OS just to view it at all).

Tesselator
10-13-2006, 03:23 AM
Sorry Tess, that's not the way things work on the Mac. ;) The main window is a separate window, and even if you can't think of a time you'd want to minimize it without also minimizing all the other palettes, it's the way it should work, to the best of my knowledge.

To get rid of LW (or any program) as a whole while leaving it running, I hide it. :) (Having been used to that paradigm since the days of OS 7 helps it seem natural, I suppose...)


Yeah, you're probably right. I was kinda calling for a windowism. Thinking
more about the mac way there seems to be several conventions that take care
of the issue.

RonGC
10-13-2006, 01:35 PM
Being able to access ilife would be valuable.

I would like to be able to as requested by others output the preview to qt then send the preview to Garageband so that i could do the movie soundtrack, score and dialog within Garageband.

The beauty of this is that i have the video track playing and recording live to audio in multiple layers. Once i have the soundtrack finalized i can apply it to the final rendered video. All done within the Mac with the available tools already on the machine.

Ron

jerosser
10-14-2006, 07:33 AM
Just some additional thought on a couple of previous suggestions.

1. Encapsulation!!! Totally agree with dsol here although I'd like to see as much as possible in the object, not an intermediate file. My particular issue here is with bones. Adding as many bone related operations to modeler would be a great help in character rigging. I'd actually hoped to see this in v9.

2. UV generation. Still not happy with the actions required to unwrap and export a UV templet for painting in another app. BTW the documentation in the v9 manuals on UV operations could be a lot better.

3. Hair/Fur. Including sas has helped here but that plugin is falling behind rather quickly on both the UI and integration with scene operations.

4. Screamernet integration with Automator would be a great help. Ditto for batch renders.

5. Dump the Hub altogether. Probably get flack on this one but I've never had the thing work correctly going back to v6. First action on new installations is to turn the hub OFF. Hasn't hurt the workflow that much.

6. Please DO NOT move toward merging layout and modeler. Please DON'T!!!! The current approach fits our workflow real well.

As always stability and feature commonality should be most important.

P.S. Having great fun with the node editor. A great improvement for complex and dynamic surfacing tasks.

dsol
10-14-2006, 08:13 AM
1. Encapsulation!!! Totally agree with dsol here although I'd like to see as much as possible in the object, not an intermediate file. My particular issue here is with bones. Adding as many bone related operations to modeler would be a great help in character rigging. I'd actually hoped to see this in v9.

Actually, I wasn't thinking of there being an intermediate file. Instead, what I'm proposing is a little more radical. I would like to see LWO and LWS files becoming a single unified (flexible) format. So that scenes are objects, and vice-versa. This new encapsulated object format would be able to contain animation, lights, surfaces - everything that the existing LWS format contains, as well as mesh data, morphs, UV maps - all stored within a self-contained hierachy. And the crucial part is that these SceneObjects (or lightwave smartobjects - LWSOs!) can be loaded into other LWSOs while keeping them encapsulated and not breaking them apart



6. Please DO NOT move toward merging layout and modeler. Please DON'T!!!! The current approach fits our workflow real well.

What I'm proposing actually removes the technical distinction between layout and modeler, however I agree that a huge swiss army knife application that tries to handle the needs of both may not be the most efficient paradigm for workflow (particularly team-based workflow). There is an excellent solution to this though. Instead of actual different apps for Layout and Modeler, there is one app that can be set to use different UI templates depending on the type of work you're doing. You could also launch multiple instances of this master app and have say, one set to the "Layout" template and the other set to "modeler". Each of course has seamless intercommunication with the other - even over networks. Maybe we keep a hub metaphor - though it becomes more of a large-scale server app. With the option of running on a separate machine possibly?

This concept would assist massively on large collaborative projects. For example, when building a complex animation of a car, you could create a hierachy of encapsulated objects. At the top level you would have the animation of the car, at the level below that you might have someone working on the body shell and basic features and then linked below that several encapsulated components (like headlights, tyres etc.) each being worked on by additional artists.

As you can tell, I'm quite excited by this idea :) C'mon Chilton - even if you don't have the oomph within NT to ever make stuff like this happen, can you at least tell me (if it's not sticking your neck out too far) if you think it's an interesting idea?

Chilton
10-14-2006, 08:39 AM
Hi Dsol,



As you can tell, I'm quite excited by this idea :) C'mon Chilton - even if you don't have the oomph within NT to ever make stuff like this happen, can you at least tell me (if it's not sticking your neck out too far) if you think it's an interesting idea?

The LightWave engineers routinely discuss the future of 3D software design, and what that might look like (contrary to popular belief in other parts of this forum). Every goofy youtube interface or 3d video that comes out is discussed at least a few times. So the Universal Binary, while a major step, will in no way be the pinnacle of our efforts ;-)

So yes, I would say this is an interesting idea. I can't say much more than that though, but I do think the future of 3D will be exciting, and probably closer than some might think.

-Chilton

Scazzino
10-14-2006, 09:30 AM
Actually, I wasn't thinking of there being an intermediate file. Instead, what I'm proposing is a little more radical. I would like to see LWO and LWS files becoming a single unified (flexible) format.

I prefer to have them separate, and even more separated than currently. I'd rather have surface data in a separate file than in the object file. Only store the reference to the surface, just like image files work. I'd like to see separate surface files referenced by either objects or scenes actually. That way we could simply replace a surface file and anything that uses it gets updated without having to resave the scene/object files etc with new data in them.

Object (and scene) files could still contain embedded surfaces for backwards compatibility, but they could be optionally stored as external links. Much like we have the option in FreeHand to store an image element as encapsulated in the FreeHand file, or as an external link.

:D

dsol
10-14-2006, 10:36 AM
I prefer to have them separate, and even more separated than currently. I'd rather have surface data in a separate file than in the object file. Only store the reference to the surface, just like image files work. I'd like to see separate surface files referenced by either objects or scenes actually. That way we could simply replace a surface file and anything that uses it gets updated without having to resave the scene/object files etc with new data in them.

Object (and scene) files could still contain embedded surfaces for backwards compatibility, but they could be optionally stored as external links. Much like we have the option in FreeHand to store an image element as encapsulated in the FreeHand file, or as an external link.

Hmmm... well I suppose you could create a LWSO file containing only surfaces (or even just a single surface) and have it linked as a reference file by your other objects. It's a pretty flexible system. Actually, scratch that - it should be an *incredibly* flexible system ;)

As I said before, I've always been impressed by the way that Flash works in terms of handling projects. The source format for Flash is .FLA files. These can hold just about every asset format that flash uses - and save them inside the file if users want them to. But if you don't want to create bloated .FLA source files (or wish to be able to update certain elements separately) you can link to other Flash files and treat it as an external library, or even directly to some basic AV formats like MP3 and JPEG.

I'm just really keen to make it easier to manage multiple LW projects and keep assets compartmentalised to individual jobs. And it'd make it easier to send off your projects to external render farms too!

Lightwolf
10-14-2006, 10:44 AM
I prefer to have them separate, and even more separated than currently.
Actually, the ideas aren't opposed at all.
One file format, which in turn can be used to store different assets, in different contexts.
The only downside is that some information better be stored as binary data (i.e. meshes), while ascii data is so much easier to handle from the outside.

So, a file may contain just a surface, or just a mesh, or just a motion curve... or any combination of these, referencing other files.

Compressed ascii might be a way to reduce the size (i.e. .lwz, a text file stored as a .zip). Still easy enoough to process from the outside but not as heavy to store.

Cheers,
Mike

dsol
10-14-2006, 10:53 AM
Actually, the ideas aren't opposed at all.
One file format, which in turn can be used to store different assets, in different contexts.
The only downside is that some information better be stored as binary data (i.e. meshes), while ascii data is so much easier to handle from the outside.

So, a file may contain just a surface, or just a mesh, or just a motion curve... or any combination of these, referencing other files.

Compressed ascii might be a way to reduce the size (i.e. .lwz, a text file stored as a .zip). Still easy enoough to process from the outside but not as heavy to store.

Cheers,
Mike

If it weren't for the need for cross platform compatibilty, then OSX bundles might be a good fit. With a central XML document inside containing all the ASCI-suitable material (animation, surfaces, object hierachy) and all the binary assets optionally stored inside the same bundle. I imagine it's not outside the bounds of possibility that there's a way to create an easily editable cross-platform equivalent of this.

Lightwolf
10-14-2006, 10:58 AM
I imagine it's not outside the bounds of possibility that there's a way to create an easily editable cross-platform equivalent of this.
OpenOffice has been working like that for ages. Rename an OpenOffice document to .zip and open it and you'll see. the same goes for game assets, starting with (I think) Quake - the assets files are .zips as well.
I would want to store external assets in there, or have more than one file in therre actually, since that kind of defeats the purpose of having external assets.
Also, imagery etc. should be kept well outside.

Cheers,
Mike

jeremyhardin
10-14-2006, 12:49 PM
Widgets are also zips.

parm
10-17-2006, 11:30 AM
I'm not sure whether this counts as a feature request or a fix.

But, could symmetry be made to work on both sides of a mesh. It would make dragging points about in the perspective view, much more enjoyable.

jeremyhardin
10-18-2006, 12:24 PM
fix the mkdir() command in Lscript. it crashes layout and is specific to Mac LW.

please? :D :D

EDIT: specific to Mac LW 9. Doesn't occur in 8.5.

Chilton
10-18-2006, 12:41 PM
Spoooooky.

I'll look into it.

-Chilton

CrackWilding
10-24-2006, 09:31 AM
I'm a bit late to this thread, but I'd like to say that I'd kill to see an overhaul of the UI. I can't stand the way LW randomly picks new locations for windows to appear (I'm a Mac user, incidentally), especially when it's on the far side of my auxilliary monitor. It also drives me nuts the way windows randomly gain focus and won't relinquish it without clicking the mouse (and for some odd reason, clicking in the numeric boxes of the main layout window isn't enough -- you get the cursor, but you can't type). I'm fanatical about efficient use of my arms and hands, and waving back and forth from the keyboard to the mouse about drives me mad.

I'm a big fan of modo's UI -- they really broke new ground in my opinion, and I'd love to see LW head in this direction. Instead of a jumble of windows, why not a comprehensive interface that can be arranged at the user's discretion? Personally, I have no reason to ever have the properties panel closed, but it has to reflect the object I have chosen and it can't steal focus away from my main window. Same goes for the graph editor, the scene editor, render settings, etc. For that matter, I'd prefer to have object props, camera props, and light props open together, and for LW to autoselect each item as I adjust values in each of those windows.

Anyway, you get the point. The UI feels ancient and clunky, and I'm more than ready to see it updated.

One more thought -- I think this goes hand in hand with stability, and for that matter, consistency. LW still feels like a big wad of plugins, and each has its own weird issues and workarounds. I'd really like to feel like I'm using one solid application rather than a large collection of uneven applications.

Cheerio!

mike_stening
10-24-2006, 09:46 AM
one that i noticed today, just playing around animating and rendering, that wether you have render disply on or off the render will be slower if you leave the mouse still, in other words if you want it to really fly rendering you have to keep the curser moving, now i seem to remember this from older versions but i'm sure it only applied when render display was on, but now it does it when it's off too and i don't really want to sit there swishing my mouse (or wacom pen in my case) about and looking like i have gone mental :neener: would be nice if it just did it withou manual help.
maybe it has something to do with the new render progress displays but it seems a bit weird.

fix it pleease :thumbsup:

Chilton
10-24-2006, 06:13 PM
Hi,


one that i noticed today, just playing around animating and rendering, that wether you have render disply on or off the render will be slower if you leave the mouse still, in other words if you want it to really fly rendering you have to keep the curser moving, now i seem to remember this from older versions but i'm sure it only applied when render display was on, but now it does it when it's off too and i don't really want to sit there swishing my mouse (or wacom pen in my case) about and looking like i have gone mental :neener: would be nice if it just did it withou manual help.
maybe it has something to do with the new render progress displays but it seems a bit weird.

fix it pleease :thumbsup:

Yeah, that was a weird one. And it's fixed in the UB version.

-Chilton

Darth Mole
10-25-2006, 02:09 AM
Was just thinking - and I guess this isn't in the right thread, but that's the curse of being really active on the forms, Chilton - what are the chances of a history palette, like Photoshop, that would enable the user to step back in time to a previous iteration of their project. Basically multiple undos on steroids.

And, while I'm on a fantastical tain of thought, could you build a sort of mini-Time Machine from Leopard, just for LW, using a continuous back-up save system?

mike_stening
10-25-2006, 02:59 AM
cheers chilton, i can sleep at night now :thumbsup:

like that idea darth

oh and while i'm at it could you change one little but slightly annoying thing, when you go to load a new image or texture you have to scroll all the way down to the bottom of the drop down window, could you set it so that (load image) is directly under (none), that way when you have a scene with hundreds of textures in and you wan t to load a new one you don't have to scroll through every thing just to do it.:bowdown:

Chilton
10-25-2006, 05:55 AM
Was just thinking - and I guess this isn't in the right thread, but that's the curse of being really active on the forms, Chilton - what are the chances of a history palette, like Photoshop, that would enable the user to step back in time to a previous iteration of their project. Basically multiple undos on steroids.

And, while I'm on a fantastical tain of thought, could you build a sort of mini-Time Machine from Leopard, just for LW, using a continuous back-up save system?

Despite that Leopard info is in the wild, it is still violates our NDA to discuss it. However, rest assured that support for various Leopard technologies is planned. They probably won't make it into the first release of the UB, but who knows. It's all a matter of time and effort. Time being the one in short supply.

-Chilton

Chilton
10-25-2006, 05:57 AM
oh and while i'm at it could you change one little but slightly annoying thing, when you go to load a new image or texture you have to scroll all the way down to the bottom of the drop down window, could you set it so that (load image) is directly under (none), that way when you have a scene with hundreds of textures in and you wan t to load a new one you don't have to scroll through every thing just to do it.:bowdown:

I'm not sure if something like this could be done without it affecting both platforms. Frankly, I'm not a PC programmer, and far be it from me to do something that could potentially invoke the ire of the other engineers on LW. But if a chance comes up to address that, I'll see what I can do.

-Chilton

mike_stening
10-25-2006, 06:06 AM
totally understand that it would have to be a global change, but it wouldn't be, IMO, earth sharttering to change it. but yeah cool if it can be addressed it would certainly take scrolling for eternity to add a file, yeah you could go to the image editor to load it but it would then still envolve scrolling to the end of the list to add the file.

sorry chilton, sometimes take your involvement for granted.

Chilton
10-25-2006, 08:49 AM
totally understand that it would have to be a global change, but it wouldn't be, IMO, earth sharttering to change it. but yeah cool if it can be addressed it would certainly take scrolling for eternity to add a file, yeah you could go to the image editor to load it but it would then still envolve scrolling to the end of the list to add the file.

sorry chilton, sometimes take your involvement for granted.

It's not a problem for some things. In this case, ***without actually looking at it first***, I'd guess this wouldn't be too tricky. But again, it will be done after the list of UB specific stuff gets done, and only with approval from others on the dev team.

I wouldn't ask for input if I didn't want input. Or something equally profound.

-Chilton

Scazzino
10-25-2006, 12:37 PM
I'd love to see some of these double OpenGL performance gains on the Mac (http://www.macworld.co.uk/osx/news/index.cfm?newsid=16267&pagtype=allchandate)! :D

eblu
10-25-2006, 02:38 PM
well for that to work scazz, the heavy lifting would have to be moved from the processor. The way I've read in between the lines in the last 9 years, Lightwave's bottlenecks are all tied to the processor before drawing in OpenGL (hence the apparently fruitless pressure mac users have put on Newtek to optimize for PowerPc.) But I guess it could also be very inefficient OpenGL code, but frankly that sounds too good to be true. inefficient OpenGL code would be massively easier to fix than say... the heart of the internal lightwave document representation, or drawing pipeline Pre-OpenGL.
its a sleeping dog whatever it is. they'll probably get to it at some point, but it never sounded trivial.

Scazzino
10-25-2006, 02:50 PM
well for that to work scazz, the heavy lifting would have to be moved from the processor.

Not really... the OpenGL portion itself could see a nice speedup (that's all this addresses)... pre-OpenGL processing of course, like bone deformations etc, wouldn't benefit...

Now, if they could multi-thread those processes somehow, then maybe they could get faster too, down the road of course... ;)

Filmdesigner
10-30-2006, 02:40 PM
Fix that badly instigated DISTANT LIGHT viewer. As I have been harping on about for months now, it should show the scene in isometric or axonometric projection, NOT perspective.

I would be delighted to point you to another of my Posts describing this in greater detail.

jeremyhardin
11-09-2006, 09:25 AM
Probably a bit late for more input...but what's the harm? :D

*LW's default fullscreen should allow room for the dock, even if the dock is hidden (as most other apps do, even pro apps).
*LW should not steal the focus when it's render completes, particularly if it's rendering a sequence and it steals the focus at every frame. (LW actually stole the focus 3 times while trying to type this post).

gerry_g
11-09-2006, 09:56 AM
I thought it only stole focus if frame end beep was on ??

But as to the other point about LW giving space for the dock, if by that you mean the dock should slide over the top of the LW window rather than nudge it out of the way, this is one of my pet hates.

jeremyhardin
11-09-2006, 10:02 AM
I thought it only stole focus if frame end beep was on ??
nope, try it.


But as to the other point about LW giving space for the dock, if by that you mean the dock should slide over the top of the LW window rather than nudge it out of the way, this is one of my pet hates.no, I mean that it's 'fullscreen' mode should not cover up or go under the dock. and if the dock is hidden, it should leave the 50 pixel margin (or whatever it is) empty so that when the dock comes out, it wont be occluding/occluded by Lightwave.

Chilton
11-09-2006, 10:14 AM
Hi Jeremy,


nope, try it.

no, I mean that it's 'fullscreen' mode should not cover up or go under the dock. and if the dock is hidden, it should leave the 50 pixel margin (or whatever it is) empty so that when the dock comes out, it wont be occluding/occluded by Lightwave.

I can clear up a bit of this.

1) Currently it steals focus. This is bad, wrong, and needs to end. It needs to use the MacOS event manager. This will be done very soon. It's just a matter of having bigger fish to fry right now.

2) Fullscreen mode is not a true fullscreen mode. *I* think we should have both, a real full-screen mode (aka Kiosk mode, where the dock and menubars go away, which is preferable in some cases in production environments) and a more traditional MacOS most-of-the-screen mode that has room for Mr. Docky.

These are planned changes.

-Chilton

harlan
11-09-2006, 01:10 PM
If you want to see a good example of UI design, take a look at Adobe's Lightroom beta.

I'm not referring to the way it "looks", but rather it's functionality. Lightroom offers like 2 or 3 different full-screen modes, and all of the panels are customizable (you can have them disappear until you mouse over to a side of the screen, keep them open, keep them closed, resize them, etc...). It's a very niice (in my best Borat impersonation). :)

Chilton
11-09-2006, 03:30 PM
I have a number of apps I'm using for inspiration for future directions in LW. If I said which ones, it might give away some of the things I think would be somewhat revolutionary in the 3D arena, so I'm going to stay quiet on that topic for a bit.

However, I haven't seen the Lightroom beta. I'll take a look. I did look at their audio app beta, and it seems they have a consistent design in there they're probably going to start sharing across apps.

Darth Mole
11-09-2006, 03:52 PM
*I* think we should have both, a real full-screen mode (aka Kiosk mode, where the dock and menubars go away, which is preferable in some cases in production environments) and a more traditional MacOS most-of-the-screen mode that has room for Mr. Docky.

Plus a version which is the same as it is now, for those people who don't mind it. I dislike not being able to access my dock (which is set to auto-hide), and I don't want a ruddy great gaping hole at the bottom of the LW display either. :)

Matthias
08-14-2007, 07:17 AM
I one could use the 3D data in After Effects, that would be cool.
In Cinema 4D it`s pretty easy.

Also sth. like the render queue would be nice. So one could setup
several scenes to render overnight.

Matthias
08-14-2007, 07:34 AM
another thing that just came to my mind…

Since there are so many bugs in the Mac Version,
wouldn`t be it nice, if there was kind of collection
of the known bugs and the „official“ workarounds?

Most of the problems seam to be experienced by a lot of users
and it is pretty timeconsuming to search through all the forums,
even if there`s often a solution to find.

So a To Do List would be cool.

Chilton
08-14-2007, 07:54 AM
Hi Matthias,


Since there are so many bugs in the Mac Version,
wouldn`t be it nice, if there was kind of collection
of the known bugs and the „official“ workarounds?

After the UB ships, we might consider doing this. The UB replaces a ton of old problematic code.

-Chilton

jeremyhardin
08-14-2007, 08:06 AM
After the UB ships, we might consider doing this. The UB replaces a ton of old problematic code.

-Chilton

Chilton, when exactly is UB shipping? Macworld UK says it already is, but I don't see anything about it on http://register.newtek.com or http://www.newtek.com/lightwave

Kuzey
08-14-2007, 08:44 AM
I think Chuck said it almost went gold last week...so sooner than soon, I guess :D

Kuzey

Ps. here's the link:

http://www.newtek.com/forums/showthread.php?t=72494

I beat the 5 minute rule !!!

4dartist
08-16-2007, 06:18 PM
I have to say if somebody had asked me what LW should improve on with the mac last year the list would be a mile long. But with all the improvements lately that list has gotten extremely short. I am all for adding new features to keep up with the competition and the such, but I would much rather see improvements still in some key places that already exist.

1. Performance in modeler. I know this has probably been improved on some, but lately it seems like it has gotten way worse. Atleast on my Dual Quad Core Intel Mac. We are moving around some pretty heavy objects all the time and it's really slowing us down. Trying to move a row of verts and the refresh can be up to like 3 seconds.. It's really just modeler performance in general. Loading and Closing objects has gotten very slow. Even switching objects. (It may be a UB thing, not ppc... not sure)
(it seems like when people are testing modeler they open spheres and cubes and go 'wow look how good the open GL is' and aren't testing real objects that are used in production.)

2. Hypervoxels. I would love to see another iteration of them. Texturing volumetric hypervoxels is a bit insane. I have been doing smoke for the last few years and man... it's a pain to get to look right and even then, it's only acceptable looking. We have recently been turning to other software to get our smoke because hypervoxels just aren't cutting it sometimes.

Thats it for me!

Ben

kretschi
08-21-2007, 06:30 PM
Softshadows for al kinds of lights...?

loki74
08-21-2007, 10:02 PM
If NT really wants to get OSX users feeling warm and fuzzy towards them, It'd be nice to see some of the cooler (and unique) features of OSX get some specific support in LW. Support for GPU acceleration via CoreImage in some of the Image processing plugins might be a nice one. And in the long term, being able to export LW scenes to Core Animation format might be nice (though I admit I know very little about CA at this point).

In the short term though, putting in network render support via Qmaster would be an awesome step. In fact that would be my number 1 mac-specific feature to add :)

I know that this was posted aaaaaaaaaages ago, but i feel it is worth reiterating. Qmaster support would be pretty sweet.

On the same note, but less important, would be use of the MacOS menubar. The menubar is, IMO, one of the most appealing concepts of OSX, because it adheres to Fitt's Law almost perfectly.

On an even less important note, a prettier UI would be nice. I feel that LW's UI is already very effective, but could be prettier on a purely aesthetic level. What would really make me happy is if we had numerical sliders in the same vain as those found in combustion (i'll post a screenshot later on if I can) and all around, a sleeker, more modern feel. FSAA in OpenGL would also be very nice.

Chilton
08-21-2007, 10:25 PM
I know that this was posted aaaaaaaaaages ago, but i feel it is worth reiterating. Qmaster support would be pretty sweet.


ScreamerNet is now a true commandline app. So Qmaster support is now possible. I just need a few extra hours to go play with Qmaster again ;-)

(I wanted to say that back then, but telling people we had a working commandline renderer without letting them use it, would have been mean)


On the same note, but less important, would be use of the MacOS menubar. The menubar is, IMO, one of the most appealing concepts of OSX, because it adheres to Fitt's Law almost perfectly.

I love Fitt's Law. It's how I explain the bag of Doritos duct taped to my hand.

We actually have plans for the MacOS menubar that did not make it into this version. Soon, though.

-Chilton

Kuzey
08-22-2007, 06:34 AM
Ooooh......I have one.

How about those things called "menu extras", the little apps that are next to spotlight on the menubar but for LW. We can have all our directories accessible from the menubar. That way we can select our scenes or objects without digging through folder structures from the finder to get at them or start up LW first.

Anyway, another crazy idea from me :hey:

Kuzey

Kuzey
08-22-2007, 06:39 AM
Another useful menu extra app idea :)

How about one for the rendering process status, so we can see how far the render has gone when LW is in the background and we are working in some other app.

Kuzey

John the Geek
08-22-2007, 07:13 AM
Can we fix the built-in Render Controller? It's not screaming at all. It's reading Harold and the Purple Crayon to a bunch of remedial kids. I took 6 Quad Mac Pro towers and made a quick 24-node screamernet setup expecting bliss... Hell no. The controller is so slow that by the time it gets to asking the next node to process a frame the the ones before it are already done and waiting 3 minutes for it to cycle around again to tell them to render. 24 nodes, but only 6 are rendering at any given time.

It's like this:


Excuse me, Node 1. Would you please load the scene?

Wait

Wait

Wait

Excuse me, Node 2. Would you please load the scene?

Wait

Wait

Wait

Excuse me, Node 3. Would you please load the scene?

Wait

Wait

Wait

Excuse me, Node 4. Would you please load the scene?

Wait

Wait

Wait

And there's 24 nodes...

Then the fun starts... right? Wrong!


Excuse me Mr Node 1, but can you render frame 1

Wait

Wait

Wait

Wait

Excuse me Mr Node 2, but can you render frame 2

Wait

Wait

Wait

Wait


Excuse me Mr Node 3, but can you render frame 3

Wait

Wait

Wait

Wait


Excuse me Mr Node 4, but can you render frame 4

Wait

Wait

Wait

Wait


Excuse me Mr Node 5, but can you render frame 5

Wait

Wait

Wait

Wait



The process is a joke. The larger the renderfarm, the slow it takes to render. Why can't it just have 10 nodes at a time all load the scene at once?? What's with the Joe-Stupid wait time between each one? Same with frames!!! Why the stupid wait times? Just tell them all to render a frame at the same time, especially if they've all already loaded the stupid scene!

Argh...

24 nodes, and only 6 are actually doing anything. The other 18 are waiting around with a "ready" status.

This is a joke.

mike_stening
08-22-2007, 07:23 AM
yeh john thats what i had then one of them would hang and screamer would just sit there and wait for the response which obviously never came, which in turn ment constant restarting of the network and once it did finally finish i then had to manually go back through the folder with all 4500 frames in it to find which ones had been missed out. i think it would have actually been quicker to do it on my 8core on its own without screamer.

John the Geek
08-22-2007, 07:30 AM
Clearly the person who originally wrote ScreamerNet never actually used it. No rational human being would ever observe this type of behavior and consider it acceptable, or worse, worth shipping in a paid product.

Worse, it's a core LW problem. So I don't expect Chilton to whip it up the right way for us. =( Unless he has a "Mac-specific with Bonjour" render controller around the corner somewhere in the works? Hmm, the perfect excuse to dump this bag of manure and replace it with... well, anything else!

=)

John the Geek
08-22-2007, 07:49 AM
What's going to happen when I add my 150 dual-core iMacs to this network? Then I'll have over 300 nodes... and still only 6 will be rendering at any given moment!

Sorry, apparently my rant's not over yet.

Where's the logic in having to wait for one node to respond before sending a command to the next node in the sequence? Node 24 does not require node 23 in order to do it's job? So why? Can't you just say:


Node 10 - Render frame 146
Node 11 - Render frame 147
Node 12 - Render frame 148
Node 13 - Render frame 149
Node 14 - Render frame 150


Less than a second is needed between each command. No waiting, no delay, nada. Plus, if 1 node dies, then the others should just continue to render frames around it. (You would just skip that frame for the moment.)

My render halted last night because node 17 didn't answer back about 30% into the job.... hundreds of frames went unrendered because a single node died. The controller should have went on without node 17, and if it still hadn't responded by the end of the job, the controller should have allocated that specific frame to another node in order to finish up.

Boom, I'm a better software engineer than the guy who designed ScreamerNet. Hire me Jay! The invoice for my consultation is in the mail.

:thumbsup:

3dworks
08-22-2007, 07:54 AM
what about bruce rayne's great renderfarm commander?
did anyone test it with LW 9.3 yet?

http://www.brucerayne.com/renderfarm.html

markus

John the Geek
08-22-2007, 08:11 AM
what about bruce rayne's great renderfarm commander?
did anyone test it with LW 9.3 yet?

http://www.brucerayne.com/renderfarm.html

markus

Once upon a time with 9.0 I did try it, but I'm not going to pay $95 for it.

I have a co-worker who doesn't do anything. He never finishes anything, and other people (like me) usually end up having to finish up for him. He never has to, because others keep doing his work for him.

With ScreamerNet, NewTek is this guy. Someone else has done their work for them for so long, so they don't have to. Not this time. I'm going to keep ranting that NewTek needs to get this fixed themselves. Unless they want to buy me a copy of this other software? As it stands I expect the software I already paid for to work.

That's not an unreasonable request, and one that many people throughout these forums have echoed.