PDA

View Full Version : Mac UB Press release!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



munky
01-09-2007, 01:51 PM
Hurrah!!!!!!

Newtek have announced that public beta testing is to begin!

sign me up Scotty

http://www.newtek.com/forums/showthread.php?t=61616


happy munky!

BazC
01-09-2007, 02:20 PM
Yup, congrats to Chilton and everyone else who worked on it, can't wait to try it out! :D

juanjgon
01-09-2007, 03:48 PM
Nice :) :) :) ... waiting for it ;)

harlan
01-09-2007, 04:12 PM
Yep... thanks to all involved. I've... actually "We've" all been looking forward to this for a while now... so bring it on!!! :)

thanks again guys

toby
01-09-2007, 05:09 PM
Thanks Chilto! This is better than the iPhone!

Thomas
01-09-2007, 05:57 PM
Oh, my...

I'm soo excited about the UB.

Became a bit dissappointed of not hearing anything about an 8-core, shiny black Mac Pro in the Macworld Keynote.

But then came the NT pressrelease, it "saved" my day... :)


Regards
Thomas

toby
01-09-2007, 09:55 PM
not hearing anything about an 8-core
:cursin: :mad: :twak: :cry:

Had my checkbook out and everything.

kief
01-10-2007, 01:09 AM
No more restarting in windows! Thank heavens!

eblu
01-10-2007, 07:59 AM
so... when does the PB of the UB begin?

John the Geek
01-10-2007, 08:36 AM
"soon"

I presume the announcement at MWSF was more to gather publicity at the best time than to actually release a beta. The beta release is still "coming soon" as we've been told all along, it's just that much closer now and a public commitment to a March release. This makes me happy, since it's now that much closer to going OB in time to get thoroughly tested pre-release.

Will it be the next OB release? Maybe, maybe not? But who knows anymore.

I feel bad, cause this PR got my hopes up, and I had just gotten over the waiting... now I'm glued to the forum in anticipation again... I've spend months already doing this. Haven't I learnt anything?

Here's hoping it's close this time.

Chilton
01-10-2007, 09:59 AM
Hi,

I'm at MacWorld right now. I have a few things Dave and I would like to get in there and a few more bugs we'd like fixed before the door shuts on the first release, but aside from that, it's ready.

Oh, and it's quite fast.

-Chilton

juanjgon
01-10-2007, 10:04 AM
Cant wait :)

John the Geek
01-10-2007, 10:26 AM
I'm at MacWorld right now.

You work too hard. Go enjoy MacWorld, we'll still be here whining when you get back. ;)


I have a few things Dave and I would like to get in there and a few more bugs we'd like fixed before the door shuts on the first release, but aside from that, it's ready.

That's actually good to hear.


Oh, and it's quite fast.

Proud of it, are you?

=)

Phil
01-10-2007, 11:17 AM
Mind you, it would be a pretty poor showing if it managed to be slower than the current LW system on Intel Macs. :D

All I'm after is something stable that renders faster than, or just as fast as, the Win32 version under Boot Camp on the same hardware. Should be easy for a man of Chilton's abilities. :) It's a reasonable request, I reckon ;)

Chilton
01-10-2007, 11:43 AM
Phil,

I expect nothing less of our users than to see complete, detailed reports of what is faster in the UB on a Mac than on a PC, on the same hardware.

-Chilton

al3d
01-10-2007, 01:08 PM
ok..a simple fact...with the normal Mac release...my scene took 1hr 13m. to render, on the UB Beta, 30m.13sec. and i'm told Beta are usually slower then final release..:)...

Pretty cool

masterjedi
01-10-2007, 01:16 PM
that sounds promising Thanks Al!

John the Geek
01-10-2007, 01:17 PM
ok..a simple fact...with the normal Mac release...my scene took 1hr 13m. to render, on the UB Beta, 30m.13sec. and i'm told Beta are usually slower then final release..:)...

Pretty cool

1. What kind of Mac do you have?

2. The UB beta isn't out yet.

al3d
01-10-2007, 01:18 PM
1. What kind of Mac do you have?

2. The UB beta isn't out yet.

christ me and my english....the normal Mac VS my PC beta..not UB...

al3d
01-10-2007, 01:34 PM
1. What kind of Mac do you have?

2. The UB beta isn't out yet.

christ me and my english....the normal Mac VS my PC beta..not UB...

oh..and my Mac in MacPro 2.6 with 4gig of ram with the X1900

amigo
01-10-2007, 01:53 PM
/me sheds a tear of joy upon hearing of the upcoming UB

Well done Chilton, et al.

John the Geek
01-10-2007, 02:19 PM
christ me and my english....the normal Mac VS my PC beta..not UB...

oh..and my Mac in MacPro 2.6 with 4gig of ram with the X1900


Ah, now that sounds closer to what I expected.

=)

Darth Mole
01-10-2007, 02:19 PM
I'd be really interested to hear the kind of speed incrase we'll get from going to PPC on CodeWarrior to PPC on Xcode. Though I guess I can see for myself in a couple of days...

Chilton - the bug-testing that's going on with the non-UB Mac build, are these updates being mirrored in the bug testing of the UB itself. ie when we get the UB beta, will it be on parity in terms of feature set, bugs remaining, quirky weirdnesses etc? In short will it be an OB 8 - or a UB OB 1?

eidetiken
01-10-2007, 08:30 PM
I'm interested in the SDK for the UB, will it be available during the beta period?
Has LScript been fixed in the UB?

smcstravick
01-11-2007, 04:33 AM
anyone got any news as to how soon we're going to get our hands on the UB public beta yet? we talking hours, days, weeks?

i know i'm just being impatient, but i'm sure everyone else is just as eager to get to play with it.

Thomas
01-11-2007, 06:00 AM
I'd be really interested to hear the kind of speed incrase we'll get from going to PPC on CodeWarrior to PPC on Xcode.
Yup!

Me too! Not all have the latest gear, but some has a few "old ones" scattered around the office :)


Regards
Thomas

TomT
01-11-2007, 08:24 AM
I may have to fish my LW dongle out of the drawer . . .

John the Geek
01-11-2007, 08:31 AM
anyone got any news as to how soon we're going to get our hands on the UB public beta yet? we talking hours, days, weeks?

Expect weeks, but it's possible that they intend days. Chilton was not specific about how difficult the few remaining tasks were, so we simply don't know the time.

Given the time of release they announced, and guessing on the programming side of things, I'd expect to see it by the end of January at least, and test through February/March.

Although I admit, today would be ultra-convenient for me.

dglidden
01-11-2007, 02:52 PM
Well there are two clues in the press release:

"LightWaveŽ for the Intel-based Macintosh is being prepared for the Open Beta phase."

Which doesn't say anything about when we'll see the UB in open beta. However we also get:

"The Universal Binary version of LightWave will be provided at no additional charge to registered owners of LightWave v9 when the product ships in March 07."

Which kind of gives us a deadline of sorts of when we'll see the open beta. We at least know it can't be any later than March 07, as long as NT doesn't slip the ship date further. And we can probably conclude that they'll want to release the open beta BEFORE the ship date. Probably. :)

Franky I'm encouraged but I'm not gonna hold my breath. It would be nice to see the UB before Macworld ends though.

CAClark
01-11-2007, 03:29 PM
Shouldn't be much in it, I tried rendering the muse ship in UB Modo and PC modo, and my Macbook Pro 2ghz with 1gb ram was only 10 seconds of my athlon X2 4800 with 2gb ram.

Cheers!

Ryhnio
01-11-2007, 06:02 PM
All,

It is amazing how important this update is to me and my debt!

:bangwall:

-Ryhnio Relitz

frostywd
01-11-2007, 07:44 PM
I'm wondering if plugin-in's like LWAD and fPrime (uber Biggie) will work or do they need to be recompiled?

aa1037
01-11-2007, 07:48 PM
Good question - I was wondering the same thing.

I have a feeling that the UB version of LW will require UB plugins - not sure though.

John the Geek
01-11-2007, 07:52 PM
UB Photoshop requires UB Plugins.... so likely for LW too.

=)

Chilton
01-11-2007, 08:06 PM
Hi,

The UB will require UB plug-ins. And the SDK for UB plug-ins will be ready shortly as well. It's a lot nicer building plug-ins in XCode than it was in CodeWarrior.

-Chilton

frostywd
01-11-2007, 09:43 PM
That's exciting and not ... if you know what I mean. As you might expect, I asked that question for a reason. I think I know what the answer will be (a non-answer) BUT .... has worley had any advance warning on the SDK or does the clock start clicking when the SDK is released.

I'm not complaining. I'm sure that everyone will herald the UB/SDK. For me though, the release won't really happen until I have LWCAD and fPrime for the UB as well.

One thing I really don't understand is why NT doesn't it's own version of fPrime. If anyone could build something like that it should be newtek.

John the Geek
01-12-2007, 07:37 AM
One thing I really don't understand is why NT doesn't it's own version of fPrime. If anyone could build something like that it should be newtek.

I watched their videos... VERY impressive. I hope that NewTek has that sort of thing somewhere on their horizon. When there are plugins that are built to make up for shortcomings in an application, you can only hope the vendor of that program will eventually fix those shortcomings themselves.

=)

jasonwestmas
01-12-2007, 10:39 AM
One thing I really don't understand is why NT doesn't it's own version of fPrime. If anyone could build something like that it should be newtek.

I asked a similar question, but the people who say they are familar with the structure of lightwave will just tell you that NT wouldn't be able to do that without breaking other parts of the software. I have no idea on that myself.

eidetiken
01-12-2007, 10:52 AM
I asked a similar question, but the people who say they are familar with the structure of lightwave will just tell you that NT wouldn't be able to do that without breaking other parts of the software. I have no idea on that myself.

Sorry, I had to read that a few times just to make sure I read it right. So someone told you that NT can't write a program like FPrime for lightwave without breaking other parts of LW, but Worley can do it?

John the Geek
01-12-2007, 11:17 AM
First, backward compatibility for scenes is great, but I disagree with the extent that NewTek is going about it.

Me, I'd like to see a groundbreaking LW10 release with a lot of things like FPrime built right in. At some point you can either become Windows ME and try and make everyone happy all at once, or you can break from the mold and make something new and really remarkable. After all, if people need LW9 compatibility they can always keep LW9 around.

So yeah... I didn't buy 9 to be compatible with my old copy of 7.5. What I really want to see is new and innovative ways to model and animate. If that needs to sever my ties to 7.5 then so be it. After all, I still have that copy of 7.5 somewhere.

=)

Chilton
01-12-2007, 11:34 AM
Hi,

I will not speculate on things I know nothing about. In this case, I don't know how FPrime works, nor do I know that much about rendering systems. Sure, we have people that do that kind of thing, but I'm not one of them. To say anything is impossible in our app is silly. But to say it's trivial to implement anything, anywhere, without altering something else, is equally silly. I may not be firing on all pistons, but I will refrain from Silly in this case.

As for why we don't have something like that in our product yet, consider that the same question could be asked for any plug-in. For example, why do we not use the motion sensor in the MacBook Pro to let you roll a ball around on-screen in some kind of evil 'roll-the-marble, make-an-object' object creation mode in modeler? Why can't you control LightWave by waving your hands around in front of your iSight camera? Why haven't we implemented every cool user interface idea on YouTube?

Note: I hear we once had the screaming German kid option, but I think that's been removed.

Why don't we have a button that makes a flying chicken? Flying rubber chicken? Fried chicken? Why not a button that burns your drawings directly into the center of a block of Jello via the closest BlueTooth enabled microwave oven?

It's because we don't have to. The Plug-in system was put there for a reason--so we don't have to do every single thing that every single user wants. If we miss a beat, that's what we call a 'third party opportunity'. Same thing goes for SuperCard, Photoshop, Safari, etc. Every great piece of software has a plug-in architecture, and typically one or two standout plug-ins that seem so obvious that you just gotta wonder how long before they show up as features in the product. SuperCard had ListMaster, which was so good that Apple would use it to prototype concepts for scrolling lists. But it never made it into the product. Safari has a QuickTime plug-in. Why bother? Why not just make it a patch to Safari? PhotoShop had KPT, and most of KPT never made it into PhotoShop, even after the KPT was no longer.

The truth is, sometimes it's easier for the creators of a product to concentrate on what they're already doing, and let other people concentrate on what they're already doing, and have everyone get along, than it is to try to outdo the guys making the plug-ins, just to add one more bullet point to the list of reasons to buy an upgrade. If an upgrade contains things the users could already get from plug-ins, IMO, it's not much of an upgrade.

We have things coming for future versions--BIG things. And not just for Mac users. But the future of our product must be and do more than just change what you already get. LightWave 10 ***must*** be more than LightWave 9 + plug-ins. Right?

I've written quite a few plug-ins in my life--everything from QuickTime codecs to embedded web servers, so I am on both sides of this theoretical fence. I don't know what the future will bring, but I do know that the sooner we can get the UB SDK in the hands of users like Worley, the better.

...just my 2c

-Chilton
(and now I should stop writing and get back to work)

jasonwestmas
01-12-2007, 12:50 PM
The issue is what the majority of users is wanting a product to do. Previewing quickly (like Fprime does) doesn't seem to be as important as other things (Rendering a non CA object/structure). I understand that Rendering is the core of Lightwave and many other packages. It is obvious now that NT has their hands full with the rendering features and therefore wouldn't have time to create something like Worley has done and do it with the nodes.
Even something of a simple nature like adding few features to viper, a band-aid, is probably discouraged as well.

From what I myself have been reading is that NT has opened up the Nodal SDK even more so only time will tell.

Don't get me wrong though I would appreciate a better inhouse previewer but it just isn't in the cards right now or NT isn't talking about it.

eidetiken
01-12-2007, 01:02 PM
A UB SDK for Mac X-Code is a boon for Mac users of Lightwave.

First thing I did when I got my first Mac with OS X was explore the Developer tools. I don't think Windows has developer tools built in, I wouldn't know, I came to the Mac from Linux. There's a LOT Of stuff in Mac Developer tools, and Scott Anquish's Cocoa Programming was a lot of help at the time, (this book is outdated now, covers a lot of stuff but a beginner will find most of the programs described in the book probably won't compile on Tiger now). X-Code has matured a LOT over the years and better yet, just about everything you need in order to learn how to program for the Mac is on the Apple developers site (for FREE!) and if you can't do something join one of the mailing list.

Trust me, if I can program anyone can. The trick is to just keep pluging at it, after you pull your hair out and call yourself an idiot for not being able to program, I had some bald spots there for awhile, or throw the book out the window because that long section of code you copied for the book won't compile. (Could have been a misprint but more often than not I found I had misspelled something or left out a colon, semicolon, or some other small syntax error on my part, don't know was hard to tell after I dug the book up out of the compost heap).

The trick is, just keep plugging away at it. Eventually it will happen and writting your own plugins are great places to start programming. And the good thing about Lightwave is, you can get a feel for how to write pluggins for lightwave by trying to write them in LScript first.

Aaron Hilligass's book Cocoa Programming for Mac OS X is a nice little starter book for beginners. At the end of that book he walks you through the making of an editor, which I have now added upon to the point where I use it to write python code. (Python is a nice little language and you could wrap python code up and use it to write Lightwave plugins, that's what's nice about Mac OS X).

After Aarons book you'll probably be ready for Beginning Xcode (Programmer to Programmer).

Robert Kuehne and J.D. Sullivan are coming out with OpenGL Programming on Mac OS X later this year, you could write you're own FPrime.

With a Lightwave UB SDK using X-Code, Mac users now have an advantage over windows Lightwave users, you only have to take advantage of what all your Mac has to offer. There really won't be any excuse now for Mac users to complain about the lack of plugins, because we will now be able to write our own, without shelling out extra for Codewarrior.

Hmm... Worley charges how much for FPrime? Wonder how much I can charge for my own MAC ONLY version? Personally, I'm interested in writing a plugin to animate a mesh with a sound file, have the mesh vibrate and or change color like an equalizer using endomorphs or something, or have my sound plugin drive the facial expressions of a character speaking or singing.

Been experimenting with it in Blender. Kinda cool.

...just my 2c

MysteryMonkey
01-12-2007, 05:21 PM
. . . Why don't we have a button that makes a flying chicken? Flying rubber chicken? Fried chicken? Why not a button that burns your drawings directly into the center of a block of Jello via the closest BlueTooth enabled microwave oven? . . . Chilton

Chilton - Can you at least add a "Make Art Button" to LightWave? I know a lot of folks that would find that extremely helpful! :D Kim

Chilton
01-13-2007, 08:08 AM
Hi Kim,

I could, but it would be subject to my concept of 'art'.

So it would render all flat surfaces in felt, texture walls in various shades of brown, yellow, and orange, and occasionally surround objects with dogs playing poker. Oh, and lots of lens flares.

But yeah, I could do that.

-Chilton

dballesg
01-13-2007, 09:12 AM
Hi,

The Plug-in system was put there for a reason--so we don't have to do every single thing that every single user wants. If we miss a beat, that's what we call a 'third party opportunity'. Same thing goes for SuperCard, Photoshop, Safari, etc. Every great piece of software has a plug-in architecture, and typically one or two standout plug-ins that seem so obvious that you just gotta wonder how long before they show up as features in the product. SuperCard had ListMaster, which was so good that Apple would use it to prototype concepts for scrolling lists. But it never made it into the product. Safari has a QuickTime plug-in. Why bother? Why not just make it a patch to Safari? PhotoShop had KPT, and most of KPT never made it into PhotoShop, even after the KPT was no longer.

The truth is, sometimes it's easier for the creators of a product to concentrate on what they're already doing, and let other people concentrate on what they're already doing, and have everyone get along, than it is to try to outdo the guys making the plug-ins, just to add one more bullet point to the list of reasons to buy an upgrade. If an upgrade contains things the users could already get from plug-ins, IMO, it's not much of an upgrade.

We have things coming for future versions--BIG things. And not just for Mac users. But the future of our product must be and do more than just change what you already get. LightWave 10 ***must*** be more than LightWave 9 + plug-ins. Right?

I've written quite a few plug-ins in my life--everything from QuickTime codecs to embedded web servers, so I am on both sides of this theoretical fence. I don't know what the future will bring, but I do know that the sooner we can get the UB SDK in the hands of users like Worley, the better.

...just my 2c

-Chilton
(and now I should stop writing and get back to work)

Hi,

I am not a Mac user, but I like to dig on the SDK, and I agree with you that the plugin system is there so third party can implement thinks that Newtek can miss.

But you must agree that the actual SDK is almost obsolete. For example someone gave explanations on the LWPlugin list of why maybe the XCALL() it is almost not necessary anymore. Or the quantity of macros on the SDK (not recommended on every book and website I readed about CPP, for C are fine).

What about use C++ straight away? You can't. You need to do a wrapper to simplify your live if you want to use it any CPP useful library.

And for my taste have thousands of lines of code on only one or two files, like many examples of the SDK, and not be able to reuse the code, it is really bad. And I know you are working on that for another post of jay roth.

And the examples are coded on so many different ways!! :(

I saw as well that you have been implementing things on the latest SDK version on the MAC side, like the __attribute__((visibility("default"))) to align the structs in GCC! :) And the utilities there for the CFPlugin architecture.

I think many users would be really happy of have a PURE version of the SDK for CPP. I asked for it many times (since version 5.5) and I've been always ignored.

And I know you are opening more the SDK, but there are still old parts that need a deep revision, so the only thing we can do is wait and pray that you can implement them on a reasonable space of time.

So I agree, Newtek doesn't need to do EVERY plugin on earth, but if they give us modern tools, many people could do better plugins faster. :)

Best regards,
David

Chilton
01-13-2007, 10:07 AM
Hi David,



But you must agree that the actual SDK is almost obsolete.


Please wait until this SDK is released before calling it obsolete. :devil:

-Chilton

dballesg
01-13-2007, 11:11 AM
Hi David,



Please wait until this SDK is released before calling it obsolete. :devil:

-Chilton

Sorry Chilton, I did not pretend any ofense! :(

And I was talking about the old pre 9.0 (my fault for not clarify), not the new one! :)

Because you omitted the part were I was mention your (and from all the new team) improvements! ;)

Best regards,
David

Lightwolf
01-13-2007, 11:35 AM
Robert Kuehne and J.D. Sullivan are coming out with OpenGL Programming on Mac OS X later this year, you could write you're own FPrime.

Not quite. FPrime afaik only uses OpenGL to display the render, all the numbercrunching is done by the CPU. And Steve Worley wrote his first complete renderer in 1996 (if my memory recalls it correctly, he mentioned it in one of the raytracing news way back then - http://www1.acm.org/pubs/tog/resources/RTNews/html/ )


With a Lightwave UB SDK using X-Code, Mac users now have an advantage over windows Lightwave users, you only have to take advantage of what all your Mac has to offer. There really won't be any excuse now for Mac users to complain about the lack of plugins, because we will now be able to write our own, without shelling out extra for Codewarrior.

You can use the free MSVC 2005 Express on the PC as well, and with a it of hackery even for 64bit plugins, all free (plus there are a couple of other free options).
Then again, since I use CW as well I'm really looking forward to the switch to XCode...

Cheers,
Mike

eidetiken
01-13-2007, 12:30 PM
Lightwolf yeah, OpenGL's just a part of it. I'm just anticipating the book.

Been researching how involved renderers are from open source code like Aqsis and Pixie. It would take some work to convert to something like FPrime, but anything is do-able, just depends on how much you want it.

I know nadda about windows. Used it in the dos and 3.1 days when I had to, but prefered Unix.

frostywd
01-14-2007, 12:49 AM
As for why we don't have something like that in our product yet, consider that the same question could be asked for any plug-in. For example, why do we not use the motion sensor in the MacBook Pro to let you roll a ball around on-screen in some kind of evil 'roll-the-marble, make-an-object' object creation mode in modeler? Why can't you control LightWave by waving your hands around in front of your iSight camera? Why haven't we implemented every cool user interface idea on YouTube?

That's taking my argument to the extreme - ummm, when can we expect that MacBook Pro motion sensor 'roll-the-marble' thingy a ma bob?

I think that almost anyone who even casually uses LW would agree that fPrime is required software to use LW. lwcad is another issue and I shouldn't have mentioned it. When lwcad 1.5 was given away I thought that NT was about to purchase the plug-in and my life would have been that much easier.

I AM JUST SAYING (hands up in a soothing way and avoiding eye contact) that NT would be better served if it had it's own version of fPrime that was completly part of the app. In my case, once the UB comes out I'll try it but then the clock starts ticking as to when I can actually USE it in a productive way. I suspect that I am not alone.

jasonwestmas
01-14-2007, 07:39 AM
That's taking my argument to the extreme - ummm, when can we expect that MacBook Pro motion sensor 'roll-the-marble' thingy a ma bob?

I think that almost anyone who even casually uses LW would agree that fPrime is required software to use LW. lwcad is another issue and I shouldn't have mentioned it. When lwcad 1.5 was given away I thought that NT was about to purchase the plug-in and my life would have been that much easier.

I AM JUST SAYING (hands up in a soothing way and avoiding eye contact) that NT would be better served if it had it's own version of fPrime that was completly part of the app. In my case, once the UB comes out I'll try it but then the clock starts ticking as to when I can actually USE it in a productive way. I suspect that I am not alone.

Here's hoping but I think they would let worley do what he does best without competing or complimenting his work. There are those who argue that NT is seeking more independance; that is probably just speculation and that gets into things like NT's business model and future plans which is probably too abstract to discuss at this point anyway.

I agree that an excellent previewer is GREATLY Needed for CA work. It is not merely a question of 'want' anymore, that would be an old school way of thinking when considering the competition. Jay has said himself that he wants to support CA. First step I think will be to modify the CA animation/keying workflow however and will not be to create an awesome version of viper, for example.

toby
01-14-2007, 01:01 PM
I agree that an excellent previewer is GREATLY Needed for CA work.
Why is that? OpenGL is pretty much all you need to preview character animation, isn't it?

jasonwestmas
01-14-2007, 02:06 PM
I strongly belive that previewing lighting and surfacing attribues in referance to specific frames 'quickly' is pretty high priority these days for CA work. It's not just a luxury anymore. :)

toby
01-14-2007, 04:49 PM
I respect your opinion, not everyone uses the same workflow, but I don't think the rest of the CA community would agree. You wouldn't change your animation according to the surfacing, would you? Or are you talking about after the main CA is done? Tweaking things for the final render isn't really CA, and should be done in the same final renderer anyway -

jasonwestmas
01-14-2007, 07:21 PM
Correct, I wouldn't change my animation to fit the surfacing too often, if at all. However, I would want to see the surfacing and lighting quickly for each frame or group of frames so that I can tweak material properties and move lights accordingly. Mainly this is done (slowly with lightwave) because I want to know how objects are interacting with eachother: e.g. Global Reflective color; Mirrored Reflections/Refractions in response to motion blur and DOF; SSS in response to light and deformations; Particles, and post processing effects like Long Hair and how they are interacting with geometry. . .The more powerful effects Newtek and other 3rd party groups unleash, the more one has to take into consideration of how these powerful effects respond to eachother.

I get the impression that people who do animation usually deal with bone driven deformations and morphs (not necessarily characters). This involves more dynamic relationships within 3D space that can and will dramatically change the appearance of a deforming object in relation to the position of the lightsources and the very nature of the lighting condition. Also, one must consider the multitude of materials created which are far less predictable with today's emerging technologies. The amount of randomness applied to certain effects when measured to the level of control needs to be balanced and more often than not that balance does not exist and I have little if any control over my surfacing when observing a dynamic object within 3D virtual space, I would need a fast preview to have more control over that. I'd also like to add that when I build surfacing attributes that respond to eachother like they do in reality, that this greatly increases the time to render a single frame and so previewing multiple groups of frames is even more important to succeeding in adding my own personal touch (expression) and not fully relying on the software to do it for me as if it were a raw photograph that I shot on a whim.

Granted these are advanced features that many projects would deem as luxury type effects, I would beg to differ.

John the Geek
01-14-2007, 07:38 PM
Why is that? OpenGL is pretty much all you need to preview character animation, isn't it?

No, you need to render it first, then view it. Otherwise you aren't seeing anything more than what you already see in your workspace in layout.

John the Geek
01-14-2007, 07:47 PM
Sorry, I missed what you meant. Yeah, I think a simple OpenGL preview of the frame would be good enough for CA. A full render isn't necessary, IMHO.

jasonwestmas
01-14-2007, 07:51 PM
Sorry, I missed what you meant. Yeah, I think a simple OpenGL preview of the frame would be good enough for CA. A full render isn't necessary, IMHO.

Isn't neccesary for what? Getting a render? Anyone can render animation. The level of control is the issue, but hey if you like what you got then that's all you need I guess.

toby
01-14-2007, 08:04 PM
Correct, I wouldn't change my animation to fit the surfacing too often, if at all. However, I would want to see the surfacing and lighting quickly for each frame or group of frames so that I can tweak material properties and move lights accordingly.

I think you have the wrong idea about what CA means. Animating characters is a completely different job from rendering them. When you're animating you worry about how the character moves, not what color he is or how his face is shaded. They have to work together of course, but that doesn't mean they're the same category.

jasonwestmas
01-14-2007, 08:44 PM
It's all related in my eyes. When I am animating I'm not just moving polygons but I'm also animating the way the geometry reflects light and shadow and other effects. It's too mechanical to say otherwise, it creates a rigid stereotype to say that rendering is not involved in the animation process, especially for a freelancer. Dynamic visual relationships are involved in the complete render just as much as the positions and motions of geometry within space. Light does appear to move accross a surface, does it not? I combine animated effects in with my animation so I better have a good idea of how they are going to react to eachother before I start moving stuff around. Knowing when something is complete is not easy and is made easier when you have a fast preview. I mean, to animate a character without effects and environmental considerations is like painting a figure without a background, you can do it but what's the point? You can't tell a story with a CA without considering the entire scene.

Just my self indulgent P.O.V. Thanks for your patience.

toby
01-14-2007, 09:47 PM
It's all related in my eyes. When I am animating I'm not just moving polygons but I'm also animating the way the geometry reflects light and shadow and other effects.
Then you're talking about Animation in general, not specifically Character Animation. Character Animation is about personality of movement, of a subject, not an effect, even if it's on that subject. If you're going to say that everything is a character, then you make no distictions whatsoever, and you just confuse conversations - there's no reason to even call it Character Animation at that point. If distictions are only used so that we understand each other, not to set boundaries, it's not 'rigid' to use them.

eblu
01-15-2007, 05:45 AM
take a good look at the workflow pixar used in toy story. lighting was a consideration AFTER principle animation was done, animation models were stand-in openGL approximations ONLY. Somehow THEY managed to scrape along without lighting during animation.

there was a day (not too long ago) that you could only see 3-d animation in REAL TIME as wire frame (at all).

This discussion about whether realtime Rendering is necessary is, from My perspective, getting too close to the craftsmen blaming his tools. Go take a few film classes, take a FILM lighting class. You'll Know exactly what you want, and you won't need to do so much testing.

what does this have to do with LW UB again?

jasonwestmas
01-15-2007, 07:18 AM
Go here :)

http://www.newtek.com/forums/showthread.php?p=482508#post482508

toby
01-15-2007, 09:58 PM
Go here :)

http://www.newtek.com/forums/showthread.php?p=482508#post482508
dead link... 'access denied'

jasonwestmas
01-16-2007, 08:18 AM
works for me. . . The thread is called 'Character Previews' in the 9.2 tips and discoveries forum.

http://www.newtek.com/forums/showthread.php?p=482508#post482508

ScottSullivan
01-16-2007, 08:27 AM
If the link works for some but not others, then not everyone has access to the link, meaning it's a link to the Open Beta forum and is off limits to those not in the Beta program.

Scott

jasonwestmas
01-16-2007, 08:33 AM
Right, Forgot about that

eggpro
01-22-2007, 03:26 PM
SO it the universal Mac version going to come with a 64 bit mac or only a 32 bit one?

Chilton
01-22-2007, 03:28 PM
Hi,

32-bit for now. Obviously, this will change. But we had to get to the UB before we could address 64-bit.

-Chilton

avkills
01-22-2007, 04:33 PM
Chilton, when is the download going to be available, not seeing it yet. And great job, can't wait to start kicking the tires on it. I am assuming the Mac only dongle situation is well under control. ;)

-mark