PDA

View Full Version : Grass in LW 9.3 UB



aperezg
09-25-2007, 07:38 PM
How Can I create grass in Lw9.3 UB instead of SasLite , because it disappear in this version 8~


Mac Os 10.4.1 PPC G5

loki74
09-25-2007, 09:05 PM
I don't think you can... afaik, Worley has yet to convert any plugins to UB, so none of them will work with 9.3, which is UB

Puguglybonehead
09-28-2007, 11:06 PM
I think FiberFactory IV is in the process of being ported to the Mac UB version of LW.

bittergourd
09-29-2007, 01:33 AM
I'd say Grass Generator by Pawel Olas. http://www.polas.net/plugins/grass.php

gatz
09-29-2007, 10:38 AM
I don't think Pawel's plugins are anymore UB than Worley's. Actually, it doesn't sound like Pawel is actively developing anymore.


rg

jwiede
10-04-2007, 11:04 PM
What I don't understand is how 9.3 UB can be claimed as a "released product" when, in absence of other LW9.3 install, it's lacking many on-the-box advertised features of Lightwave. Blaming Worley seems like a cop-out given it was Newtek who chose to advertise those features as general features of Lightwave, knowing full-well they weren't available for the 9.3 UB platform.

I'm a relatively new LW purchaser (though have had prof. contact with it since Amiga days), and I purchased LW almost entirely because there was finally a UB version available. I found it very disappointing how much the 9.3 UB release omits important features compared to what's included with any of the other platforms -- these aren't tiny areas of reduced function either, there are significant, advertised LW features that are missing from the 9.3 UB platform entirely.

Had it been made clear there was NO reliable timetable for those advertised LW features actually becoming available for the UB platform, I would have held off my purchase and/or instead purchased a competing product with FULL UB support.

You can argue they're visibly omitted from the demo, of course, but there were and are still MAJOR issues with even getting the 9.3 UB demo installed properly -- mostly due to documentation being completely out of sync with the current Mac platform, where it describes any working process for Mac at all. Thus potential purchasers are left in a situation where they can't tell whether 9.3 UB issues seen in the demo are due to install problems, or represent actual issues with the non-demo UB software. The UB LScript mess is a perfect example of that situation.

It's all really, really disappointing. I wish I could have confidence these problems would be quickly resolved, but based on the language of the responses I'm seeing from Newtek folks here, rapid resolutions seem unlikely.

Meanwhile, despite 9.3 UB having serious reliability and functionality problems which make using the UB platform, exclusively, for all but the most simple end-to-end rendering work nigh-impossible, Newtek is claiming 9.3 UB is "released". Go figure.

Sorry for venting, but as someone who purchased 9.3 based on the UB platform's release, I'm finding the state of that "release" far below what generally passes as "release-quality" software. Honestly, even calling it Beta (given significant product features have yet to be implemented) seems a push.

Chilton
10-04-2007, 11:40 PM
I'm a relatively new LW purchaser (though have had prof. contact with it since Amiga days), and I purchased LW almost entirely because there was finally a UB version available. I found it very disappointing how much the 9.3 UB release omits important features compared to what's included with any of the other platforms -- these aren't tiny areas of reduced function either, there are significant, advertised LW features that are missing from the 9.3 UB platform entirely.


So I'm clear on this, we're talking about hair/fur as the major missing piece, right?




Meanwhile, despite 9.3 UB having serious reliability and functionality problems which make using the UB platform, exclusively, for all but the most simple end-to-end rendering work nigh-impossible, Newtek is claiming 9.3 UB is "released". Go figure.


Reliability problems I take very seriously. When we shipped the 9.3 release, there were no known crashing bugs still in it. We've found a few since then, but I don't think any of them were UB specific. Are you having stability problems with the UB version? If so, what are they?

-Chilton

Phil
10-05-2007, 12:22 AM
So I'm clear on this, we're talking about hair/fur as the major missing piece, right?

To be fair, it is advertised as a feature of the software. It isn't available for the UB variation, but this is not mentioned anywhere in the advertising blurb.

It is Worley's product, though, and depending on how the contract between Worley Labs and NewTek is organised, it either is or isn't their fault for the missing support. Personally, I don't care. It does need to be addressed though, or made very clear in the advertising burble that UB LW does not have any hair/fur support.


Reliability problems I take very seriously. When we shipped the 9.3 release, there were no known crashing bugs still in it. We've found a few since then, but I don't think any of them were UB specific. Are you having stability problems with the UB version? If so, what are they?

-Chilton

It's been reliable here, but 3rd party support is not really there in volume yet. such that really heavy testing cannot be done.

The interface, though, is unreliable. Lots of issues with indistinguishable font colours (trying to use the menu editor is painful because you don't have clear differentiation between font colours of items that have been assigned in the menu structure and items which haven't).

The drop-down menus not, well, dropping down is also a pain. At times, it feels like walking on eggshells - you are trying to not break the interface by using it too aggressively. It shouldn't be this fragile.

Chilton
10-05-2007, 11:19 AM
The drop-down menus not, well, dropping down is also a pain. At times, it feels like walking on eggshells - you are trying to not break the interface by using it too aggressively. It shouldn't be this fragile.

I completely agree.

-Chilton

jwiede
10-05-2007, 01:17 PM
So I'm clear on this, we're talking about hair/fur as the major missing piece, right?Well, the Hub and LScript problems are pretty intrusive as well. Still, with enough restarting of LW, those issues can kind of be worked around, whereas there is currently no solution for hair/fur on UB, period. It was easy to mistakenly think saslite would fill in as a temporary UB solution until the others appeared, and discovering it's absence (the only way to find out) makes that situation substantially more painful precisely because there are no alternatives there.

Aside, Newtek needs to realize that responding to posts in threads does not represent a solely reliable means of communicating bugs and workarounds to their customers. Yet far too often, that's the only venue in which critical pieces of information are handed out, often in obscure threads instead of permanent and prominent locations. Defining "missing functionality" becomes a subjective mess. Features which can only work via workarounds solely described in obscure forum thread posts are effectively "missing features" for customers who don't luck across those posts.


Reliability problems I take very seriously. When we shipped the 9.3 release, there were no known crashing bugs still in it. We've found a few since then, but I don't think any of them were UB specific. Are you having stability problems with the UB version? If so, what are they?
Stability doesn't just mean the program works, it also means the programs work in a predictable and reliable manner. The hub problems are a very solid example of poor stability by that definition, despite not typically causing the programs to crash, at least during use.

There is a "standard" workaround to the Hub problems, by renaming the hub and thus disabling it, but that leaves a random selection of UI functions in Modeler and Layout non-functional. Unfortunately, it does so without any clear enumeration of all UI functions that are impaired. Long-time LW users might understand the impact intrinsically, but not all your paying customers fall into that category, and the rest have to find out by trial and error. Thus the workaround fixes some, but also introduces additional UI reliability issues.

There are a bunch of other UI-related issues in 9.3 UB as well, in particular related to its initial configuration on a platform lacking any prior LW install, which initially gives the impression other major pieces are missing. They can be fixed, once the problem is realized, but short of reading every thread in the LW-Mac forum a new user is unlikely to ever realize the cause. I decided to read the fora, and so eventually found the solution, but I suspect there are other new LW customers who just wrote off the UB release as hopelessly broken.

I can go into the LScript problems and how they figure into this, but I expect that situation is already known to be a serious reliability problem. For folks who just install 9.3 UB alone, and didn't have previous LW installs, LScript might as well represent another area of "missing functionality". Again, there doesn't appear to be anything to indicate this situation to new users outside of forum posts.

MysteryMonkey
10-07-2007, 10:06 PM
. . . The hub problems are a very solid example of poor stability by that definition, despite not typically causing the programs to crash, at least during use.

I too want more of the old plugins like SasLite, but I've got to say I'm not finding the Hub to be a problem since 9.2 came out. Before 9.2 it caused numerous crashes until I disabled it. But when I installed 9.2 I decided to give it a try again and low and behold I don't think I've had a Hub related problem since. Watch now, I'll probably be struck with all sorts of Hub related issues, but for now it has worked just as I think it was designed to work.

___mats___
10-08-2007, 06:05 PM
I have to cast my vote, the UB and PPC version of LW is useless, hub problems, the UI is super slow, beach ball.. use the texture panel and have to wait 5 seconds before moving a slider.. very unresponsive.

I have to use the PC version to get any work done in a timely manner, hope newer versions work as fast as the PC version

Puguglybonehead
10-08-2007, 08:14 PM
I haven't had hub problems in the UB, only in the PPC version of 9.3 (I'm on a Mini G4). I love how fast the UB renders. A moderately high-poly scene was rendering nearly twice as fast in the UB with Final Gather radiosity on than it was on the PPC version with just raytracing. Now I just wish Saslite and the 3rd party plugins (Hyperstars, MeshPaint) that I use would get ported to the UB.

All my crashes have been in the PPC versions of 9.0, 9.2, 9.3. The UB is fine, just needs some 3rd party support.

harlan
10-09-2007, 05:59 PM
I've had no problems with the 9.3 UB HUB in any way. It works as advertised, and aside from the icon indicating it's still active (when it isn't) in the dock, it works great.

There are a ton of things I'd like to see improved upon, fixed, etc... in LW and a few 3rd party tools we need ported, but 9.3 is without doubt the most stable version of LW to hit the Mac platform. We manage to get plenty of work done with it. :)

Sande
10-10-2007, 01:25 AM
How Can I create grass in Lw9.3 UB instead of SasLite , because it disappear in this version 8~

I think you could try Pavlov's approach (http://www.newtek.com/forums/showthread.php?t=58274&highlight=grass+trick), which seems to give pretty nice results. :)

hdace
10-10-2007, 09:20 AM
What I don't understand is how 9.3 UB can be claimed as a "released product" when, in absence of other LW9.3 install, it's lacking many on-the-box advertised features of Lightwave. Blaming Worley seems like a cop-out given it was Newtek who chose to advertise those features as general features of Lightwave, knowing full-well they weren't available for the 9.3 UB platform.

Sorry for venting, but as someone who purchased 9.3 based on the UB platform's release, I'm finding the state of that "release" far below what generally passes as "release-quality" software. Honestly, even calling it Beta (given significant product features have yet to be implemented) seems a push.

I'm afraid I haven't found any of your complaints to be serious problems for me. I use both G5's & intel Macs and I find that 9.3 is stable and works beautifully. Very few crashes and I use a lot of features all the time.

With regard to Saslite couldn't you just run the CFM version? I know it's clunky on an intel box but it WORKS and it does have Saslite. I mean, you know, just to render the grass? Then you could re-combine elements in post...

MysteryMonkey
10-10-2007, 03:34 PM
. . . With regard to Saslite couldn't you just run the CFM version? I know it's clunky on an intel box but it WORKS and it does have Saslite. I mean, you know, just to render the grass? Then you could re-combine elements in post...

I can't speak for others, but for me one of the reasons to use the UB version is the increased render speed (and stability), which of course is useless because SasLite isn't available in the UB version. Yes it can be done the way you suggested if I went out and bought a post application, but unfortunately a post render application isn't in my near future. Wouldn't we all be so much happier if SasLite and other plugins were all ported over to the UB though?

Mr Maze
10-10-2007, 04:46 PM
I have found 9.3 UB to be the most stable and usable version of LW 9 on my Intel Mac so far. However, I found that disabling the Hub exponentially improved interface reaction times. Which is a shame, because without the Hub LW has a very disjointed workflow.

aperezg
10-10-2007, 06:36 PM
I think you could try Pavlov's approach (http://www.newtek.com/forums/showthread.php?t=58274&highlight=grass+trick), which seems to give pretty nice results. :)


Hi Sande

thanks for answer this post, I'm waiting one answer like this.

thanks again.
:goodluck:

Nige
10-12-2007, 02:23 AM
I'm afraid I haven't found any of your complaints to be serious problems for me. I use both G5's & intel Macs and I find that 9.3 is stable and works beautifully. Very few crashes and I use a lot of features all the time.

With regard to Saslite couldn't you just run the CFM version? I know it's clunky on an intel box but it WORKS and it does have Saslite. I mean, you know, just to render the grass? Then you could re-combine elements in post...

It's a nice idea but in a fast moving commercial environment it's a non starter...

What really annoys me is that neither Worley or Newtek will come out with a statement as to if or when Sas will ever be ported - at least then I could plan out the way ahead.

N:thumbsdow

jwiede
10-13-2007, 11:35 AM
I'm afraid I haven't found any of your complaints to be serious problems for me. I use both G5's & intel Macs and I find that 9.3 is stable and works beautifully. Very few crashes and I use a lot of features all the time.I'm glad someone's having a good experience. I'm not, and judging from the posts on here, apparently quite a few others are sharing my experiences.

As I said before, I consider stability as being more than just "very few crashes", requiring features and UI that work and do so reliably. I'm finding far too many areas which either work unreliably or too slowly to be useful (LScript, Hub and related functionality, the whole Mac menus thing, onscreen updates, etc.).


With regard to Saslite couldn't you just run the CFM version? I know it's clunky on an intel box but it WORKS and it does have Saslite. I mean, you know, just to render the grass? Then you could re-combine elements in post...Sorry, but yard grass is not the only use I have for saslite, and thus integration in post is neither a trivial nor efficient workflow change. I'd be better off using LW CFM for everything, and that feels like an enormous step backwards.

I view LW UB as an indication of NT's general commitment to the Mac platform, and the current situation makes me question the future of Mac LW. To be clear, I'm not questioning Chilton's commitment or level of output, but given how few folks (1? 2?) NT has doing Mac development, it seems valid to ask whether UB equivalency is even possible in the near-term given the breadth and scale of problems that exist today.

That NT / Worley won't give an estimate for a working UB saslite just further erodes my hopes of equivalency any time soon. I can't imagine how folks with revenue-generating projects depending on Mac LW find the situation remotely tolerable.

Tony3d
10-13-2007, 06:04 PM
I'm glad someone's having a good experience. I'm not, and judging from the posts on here, apparently quite a few others are sharing my experiences.

As I said before, I consider stability as being more than just "very few crashes", requiring features and UI that work and do so reliably. I'm finding far too many areas which either work unreliably or too slowly to be useful (LScript, Hub and related functionality, the whole Mac menus thing, onscreen updates, etc.).

Sorry, but yard grass is not the only use I have for saslite, and thus integration in post is neither a trivial nor efficient workflow change. I'd be better off using LW CFM for everything, and that feels like an enormous step backwards.

I view LW UB as an indication of NT's general commitment to the Mac platform, and the current situation makes me question the future of Mac LW. To be clear, I'm not questioning Chilton's commitment or level of output, but given how few folks (1? 2?) NT has doing Mac development, it seems valid to ask whether UB equivalency is even possible in the near-term given the breadth and scale of problems that exist today.

That NT / Worley won't give an estimate for a working UB saslite just further erodes my hopes of equivalency any time soon. I can't imagine how folks with revenue-generating projects depending on Mac LW find the situation remotely tolerable.

You are absolutely Correct. Bravo!

JeffrySG
10-14-2007, 08:08 PM
Until we have a fur shader for the UB version this video shows an alternative that just uses displacement nodes... pretty interesting. Should be able to get a grass out of it.

ftp://ftp.newtek.com/products/LightWave/Videos/FurDisplacement.mov

Mr Maze
10-25-2007, 02:12 PM
Thanks for posting that JeffrySG, that is a very helpful tut.