PDA

View Full Version : is there a 8.5 final release?



jbaudrand
11-23-2006, 01:45 PM
hello,
just want to know if a final 8.5 patch will be out, just like the 7.5d was for seven edition?

Sekhar
11-23-2006, 02:10 PM
Not sure what you mean...verson 8.5 has been available on the downloads page for a year.

jbaudrand
11-23-2006, 02:36 PM
i was thinking about something like a 8.5a with all the know bug corrected to have a finale clean version just like the 7.5d was....

Lewis
11-23-2006, 02:51 PM
There is no 3D software without bugs so i doubt you'll see 8.5 patch which will fix all bugs but 8.5 is pretty solid release so it's not that you can't use it.

jbaudrand
11-23-2006, 11:27 PM
:foreheads
I feel so stupid... why I asked that?

Farewell...

Phil
11-24-2006, 11:01 AM
It's a reasonable question, but I doubt you'll see NewTek do this. The 7.5d update was the only exception to a long standing approach from NewTek - only the current for-sale version gets bug fixes. I'm not entirely sure I can remember what 7.5d brought to the table, but it didn't fix any of the problems that I cared about (multithreaded rendering). Some of these got fixes in 8.x and more in 9.0. All of these had to be paid for.

Whilst disappointing, this actually means that the lifetime support claim for software from NewTek is.....no different to any other vendor, aside from perhaps Microsoft (who, to their credit, ship updates and fixes for a fairly generous period of time for most of their software).

For hardware, I think NewTek have a genuine claim to fame, with old Toaster hardware still being sent in for repair....for software, though, you'll have to join the upgrade treadmill.

jbaudrand
11-24-2006, 01:02 PM
I perfectly understand this approach, but I can tell you other example in the software industry (Vegas from Sony (2-3 patch to reach a stable version), neverwinter nights from bioware with 68 patch(ok it's a game, but why not?) , tv paint, not mention apple...)



Yes, 7.5d was an exception... a good exception.

Bonne chance pour la suite...(good luck for the futur)

Signal to Noise
11-25-2006, 08:01 AM
There is a fix to 8.5.

It's called Lightwave 9. :)

jbaudrand
11-25-2006, 10:05 AM
:D nice try...
I can show you 2 friends of mine who have bought lw9 and encounter so much trouble with it (unrecognized dongle, crashing hub, not mention the splendid difference in render if you press F10 instead of F9) that i can assure you, i won't let a coin in a tool like that.
So anyway, i don't want to transform this thread into another troll complain thread, consider just that the answer to my first question is "upgrade to 9" and let me fly away (modo...)

:stop:

Bog
11-25-2006, 11:53 AM
not mention the splendid difference in render if you press F10 instead of F9)

Woah. Wait. What? (Says he who's got a Rather Lengthy Multi-Hour Render going on his F9 button right now)

What differences are those? Tell me, O do.

The most recent version of LightWave I think is just 8.5 with no modifier. There were c and d versions of 8.2, if memory serves.

Also, if it helps keep you happy, 9.2 is in progress and on Open Beta right now. I haven't had personal experience with it, but it's nice to know that Work Progresses.

For the record, I found 8.2 more stable than 8.5. Your Mileage May Vary depending on which bits of the toolset you're using.

spec24
11-25-2006, 12:20 PM
There is a fix to 8.5.

It's called Lightwave 9. :)

a fix?? Bwahhahahahaha. My 8.5 was more stable and played with 3rd party plugins much better.

Bog
11-25-2006, 01:57 PM
a fix?? Bwahhahahahaha. My 8.5 was more stable and played with 3rd party plugins much better.


Gnnf. Can't resist!

Yes! 3rd party tools breaking is ALL NewTek's fault.


Gah! Sorry.... I was sarcastic...

Phil
11-25-2006, 04:33 PM
I am not sure that I can entirely agree with your sentiment, Bog.

If the 3rd party developers stuck to the SDK, and there was no notice of deprecation of parts of the SDK, and there was no open SDK access before the new release of LW, then I would have to say that it *is* NewTek's fault when 3rd party addons break. Jeremy Hardin made this point to me this week and I didn't initially agree, but having thought more, I do now.

The SDK should be managed properly so that notice is given of deprecated APIs, etc. The responsibility should not be laid entirely at the front door of addon developers for an application. Giving notice of changes would be a responsible thing to do. Not breaking functional parts of the application (like special buffers in 8.3) so that plugins crash and burn when used on a point release would also be....nice. This is a sore point for me and has cost me a lot of time recently because of LW's continuing lack of any practical method to export complex glow masks....especially since 9.0 has buggered SuperGlow 2 beyond all ability to use it. It uses standard SDK features and the legacy plugins; the legacy plugins have not changed since at least 7.0 (a binary file compare proves this) so something else broke sufficiently for LW to instantly crash when the plugin is activated. NewTek haven't addressed their hopeless glow implementation in 10 years. They haven't provided a way to generated complex masks, either. What is a customer to do? The only option I have, at the moment, is to round-trip stuff through 8.5, which is getting to be a real pain after 6 months. I did my best this week to encourage Jeremy Hardin to look at this, simply because I am fast losing patience.

Apart from anything else, the SDK remains sorely in need of a modern, accessible presentation that encourages developers, rather than pisses them off. LScript also needs a kick up the arse so that developers can rely on it to not be broken in new and interesting ways every time NewTek ship an update to LW.....I wouldn't be prepared to rely on LScript for my workflow because it hasn't once been reliable or full-featured since it appeared in LW 5.5.

From my point of view, the onus is very much on NewTek to properly maintain their SDK and not take a cavalier attitude to breaking things without all due care and attention.

*mutter*

Silkrooster
11-25-2006, 05:01 PM
3rd party developers have a chance to look at the new sdk if they join the internal beta program. The beta regulations as most of us know forbids anyone from disclosing what they know about what is happening.
Therefore no 3rd party developer can tell you if they are seeing the new sdk. therefore there is no way we would know what information is being sent between the 3rd party developers and Newtek.
The only way your argument would hold any water is if Newtek is denying 3rd party developers access to the beta program and I have not heard of a single 3rd party developer complain.
Silk

Bog
11-25-2006, 05:20 PM
If the 3rd party developers stuck to the SDK, and there was no notice of deprecation of parts of the SDK, and there was no open SDK access before the new release of LW, then I would have to say that it *is* NewTek's fault when 3rd party addons break. Jeremy Hardin made this point to me this week and I didn't initially agree, but having thought more, I do now.

When an update such as 9.0 is based around a core-systems re-write like updating the LightWave Core to work on a kd-tree based system rather than it's previous structure, when ObjectIDs are assigned on a per-instance basis, and when a whole new texturing system is established such as node-based shaders, then it would be ludicrous to try to reconcile the incorporation of such first-principle make-overs with existing toolsets.

Sorry, but this one's a case of "Swim with the current, or the bear gets you".

The kd-tree render structure, f'rexample, is the key to acceleration in the much-derided Global Illumination toolset. You can' t have fast radiosity without that. However, the kd-tree structure breaks a lot of pixel shaders and image processors, because it reconciles data in a completely different way.

I know I'm getting a rep as a NewTek Apologist, but this is how things work. Yesterday was then. Tomorrow ain't here yet - this is now, and now is imperfect, and you've gotta change the way things are done to make tomorrow possible. Maybe devs aren't being given as much support as could be, but this has *always* been the case that there aren't enough personnel to go around. The coders who know how stuff works are writing LightWave - and not enough left over to nursemaid 3rd party devs. I speak as a 3rd party developer my own self!

T-Light
11-25-2006, 06:37 PM
Bog -

I speak as a 3rd party developer my own self!
Really?
Didn't know that, you one of us proggyrammers Mark?

Either way, I agree with the statement, LW is moving forward :thumbsup: , It's development has to be carefull, but sacrificial lambs have to be made. :(

Bog
11-25-2006, 06:52 PM
Bog -

Really?
Didn't know that, you one of us proggyrammers Mark?

Either way, I agree with the statement, LW is moving forward :thumbsup: , It's development has to be carefull, but sacrificial lambs have to be made. :(

Not so much a code-poet, Brent. Alex is the guy who hacks chunks of raw Do-age from the code-face. But... *points at the Shaxam link* I'm pretty tolerable at translating Animator-need to Programmer-Speak.

Bog
11-25-2006, 06:58 PM
(darn edit limit!) And he's re-written it several hundred times in the last six months.

I think I may owe him a twinkie or something.

Phil
11-26-2006, 03:09 AM
You can have sacrificial lambs....just tell the farmer (developers) ahead of time, rather than snatch them from his field. Making LScript less of a second-class citizen, in terms of abilities and reliability, would also be rather helpful

Chuck
11-26-2006, 03:42 PM
A number of third party developers participate in our beta program, many more participate in Open Beta, and such participation is not required for an advance look at the SDK changes. When we commence Open Beta, we begin releasing the preliminary SDK publicly on our developer's page, and typically update it each time a new Open Beta build is posted.

Developer's Page (http://www.newtek.com/lightwave/developers.php)

LightWave v9.2 Preliminary SDK (ftp://ftp.newtek.com/products/lwsdk/lwsdk111606.zip)

Bog
11-26-2006, 04:20 PM
Jeebus, Chuck, half our re-writes have been down to MS changing their definition of "XAML Format". I don't think, come to think on it, that we've had to re-write for a LightWave Change.

But, you know. You develop, you've gotta adapt. Move with the thing. Ear to the grindstone, nose to the ground. Yeah.

Er.

Hi!