PDA

View Full Version : Tired of crashes in 9.3 ub ? ...



Audiodacious
11-18-2007, 02:28 AM
I am for sure! But I'd thought I'd share a helpful hint that worked for me reduce the crash frequency which, of course, may already be common knowledge.

I find there are two major areas of instability, the hub and multithreaded OpenGL.

- Multithreaded OpenGL.
Easy solution to this is simply to turn off the option. To me, Layout in particular seems more stable with this option turned off. This is on a Mac-Book Pro with 10.5 ( Leopard, since Nov 11 ) and a sometimes I work on a Mac-Pro with 10.4 ( Tiger ).

- The Hub.
I'd really love to a rant about why this stupid thing shouldn't even exist but... I realised that the hub was almost the sole cause of the freezes, hang ups and enormous lag I experienced every few minutes. I'm also the only one here that needs to use LW on daily basis and I realised I could work without the hub quite successfully. My solution was simply to Zip up the hub into an archive and delete the original hub application. Which means I can easily restore it if I need to.

Since removing the hub my days have been far happier! I no longer scream at the computer every few minutes! The lag has gone, the crashes are still frequent but no-where near the "every few minutes" frequency they were before. And the lag has gone. ( did I say the lag has gone ? )

Of course this means I have to save and load from from modeler to layout manually but that's no huge problem for me.

I hope this helps if you're suffering similar frustrations.

------------



Now my rant.

NewTek take note.

I have never in my professional life felt more ripped off than I do with LightWave. I payed for version 9 a year ago. I was informed at the time of purchase that a universal binary would be shipped almost immediately. This was a con. A year later we still have a totally unstable beta. This is not good business. My request for support emails have been ignored and I've never been informed of any upgrades by email. What kind of business are you running ? Do you think us little single user minnows are so unimportant and only your corporate customers deserve support ? Every thing I've done to obtain the the UB and make it work at least fairly stably has been under my own effort and investigative work. Which ok I would expect from most software houses but not when I pay such a large amount of money for a product! I'm sorry if this isn't what you want to hear but it's my genuine feeling atm and I needed to let off steam.

Audiodacious
11-18-2007, 02:38 AM
apologies for the double post, the forum didn't update and I reposted too soon thinking it hadn't worked the first time.

Phil
11-18-2007, 04:19 AM
Join the Open Beta. Report your bugs. See how the beta builds perform. You might be a lot happier. ;)

eblu
11-18-2007, 08:12 AM
phil,
i have not seen any real difference, and I've been there since day 1. using beta software from anybody (not just NT) basically means you're doing the QA testing for them. IE: you 'should' be getting more bugs, not less.

but like I said, I haven't noticed any real difference. LW became more stable going from 5.6 to 6.6, then a little more, when it went from 6.5 to 7.0. I haven't seen any real, measurable increase in stability since then.

even killing the hub does not eliminate the dumb, repetitive crashes.

Phil
11-18-2007, 08:23 AM
Oh? UB LW has been largely stable for me. Mostly UI glitches and occasional crashes (sometimes causing config file corruption). I run without the hub.

Chilton
11-18-2007, 11:03 AM
Since removing the hub my days have been far happier! I no longer scream at the computer every few minutes! The lag has gone, the crashes are still frequent but no-where near the "every few minutes" frequency they were before. And the lag has gone. ( did I say the lag has gone ? )


We have an Open Beta program so that users can have free access to the latest bug fixes immediately after they're implemented, and so that we can reduce the time between when a bug is found, and when we have it fixed. Please join! I suspect that most, if not all, of the bugs you're running into have already been fixed there.

-Chilton

Nige
11-18-2007, 02:12 PM
Well said Audiodacious...

I have been a Lightwave user since day one...

The Hub STILL causes huge issues...

Layout STILL crashes on quit - not every time, just most times...

I now have the focus issue - swop from Layout to Modeller and I have to wait 7 seconds before I can do anything...
(The odd part of this one is I have 2 identical brand new Intel iMacs, one at home and one at work - one has the issue - the other doesn't...)
Is Newtek working on this??
I doubt it...

I have spent a fortune with Worley, Pavlov and others, all to be wasted as they can't be @rsed to update their plug-ins.
Are they listening now they have my money...?
I doubt it...

It won't be long now before Cinema or Maya beckons for me - I use Lightwave for making a living, something which causes me sleepless nights sometimes - does Newtek listen??
I doubt it...

N:thumbsdow

Chilton
11-18-2007, 07:39 PM
I now have the focus issue - swop from Layout to Modeller and I have to wait 7 seconds before I can do anything...
(The odd part of this one is I have 2 identical brand new Intel iMacs, one at home and one at work - one has the issue - the other doesn't...)
Is Newtek working on this??
I doubt it...


Yes, the issue is that the Hub no longer sucks up additional processor time. The OS then thinks it's okay to be reniced to a lower priority. This started in the UB, and we have a fix in the works for it now. It will be in Open Beta before it's released into the wild though, as it is part of a larger change that will need some testing.



I have spent a fortune with Worley, Pavlov and others, all to be wasted as they can't be @rsed to update their plug-ins.
Are they listening now they have my money...?
I doubt it...

I suspect they are listening, but I cannot speak for them. I'm one of a few Mac programmers that work on LightWave though, and I can tell you we're working on a lot of things in LightWave. Yes, even on a Sunday night.

The first step was to get rid of the old crusty Mac code that had kept LW from getting to Universal Binary status. The first UB version was demo'd at WWDC last year. Since that time, we've fixed a slew of issues in it, rewrote our SDK to support XCode, and even added a few Leopard specific features before Leopard shipped. One really awesome feature broke in the very last build before 9.3 shipped. You'll see that very soon.

Unfortunately, there were still a few bugs in there that we didn't catch before 9.3 shipped. As Open Beta users know, we're addressing those as they're found. Open Beta is where fixes are applied first though, and it's completely free for all registered 9.x users.

-Chilton

Nige
11-19-2007, 04:15 AM
Cheers Chilton

Sorry if my post was a bit raw but I'm had a frustrating day with LW...

Reading between the lines of some of your recent posts, do I get the feeling that the Hub may be dropped...??

While we're on, how about a decent .fbx exporter for Modeller...

Nige

gpdesigner
11-19-2007, 02:02 PM
I downloaded 9.3 UB used it and deleted it off my machine.
I did a bench test that went like this . . .
I made a small scene;
30064 Points, 4160 Polys, Radiosity backdrop/white, basic settings, 3 spots 80%, memory was 765K, AAA was PLD 3 passes

we'll start with the best . . .
MacPro Quad 2.66 mhz - 1gig Ram: LW 9.0 Time: 6m 6secs
MacPro Quad 2.66 mhz - 1gig Ram: LW 9.3 Time: 8m 57secs(but was missing SG-Occ Pluging time should have been longer)
MacPro Quad 2.66 mhz - 1gig Ram: LW 8.5 Time: 17m 19secs
Mac G4 400 mhz - 1gog Ram: LW 8.5 Time: 1hr 10m

I am using 9.0 now . . . the speed is faster than my G4 but until UB is done I am going to stay 9.0
gp

BeeVee
11-20-2007, 02:01 AM
Please post that scene? I haven't seen anything but speed-ups from the UB version of LightWave and if something is making you use LightWave 9.0 and missing out on all the material and radiosity goodness then something is seriously wrong.

B

gpdesigner
11-20-2007, 05:28 AM
sorry, I deleted all that stuff off my machines, I was setting up my new computer so most of this transient stuff and trash got deleted. I just did that test because I wanted to see how fast my new machine was compared to my G4 400. If you are telling me LW9.3 is Fater then I will have to set up another bench, . . I will repost the results later . . .
gp

BeeVee
11-20-2007, 06:23 AM
Three times as fast (on average) as the same Intel Mac using the CFM version. On a PowerPC Mac I don't anticipate the difference being quite that significant, but it should still be faster. And 9.3 *is* faster than 9.0 and offers new functionality.

B

gpdesigner
11-20-2007, 07:32 AM
Three times as fast (on average) as the same Intel Mac using the CFM version. On a PowerPC Mac I don't anticipate the difference being quite that significant, but it should still be faster. And 9.3 *is* faster than 9.0 and offers new functionality.

B

So you are saying that on my Mac pro (intel) quad core, 2.66 Lw9.3 UB is 3x faster than LW9.0 is this correct? I am not disputing . . I am just trying to get the facts because I want to be informed . .
gp

BeeVee
11-20-2007, 07:51 AM
Yes, yes and thrice yes, particularly so if you run the Universal version.

B

gpdesigner
11-20-2007, 08:26 AM
How do I disable the HUB in 9.3 . . ?
there is no command line file?
gp

gpdesigner
11-20-2007, 08:54 AM
At first glance it seems 9.3 takes longer to load the default scene . . . .

scene: 508,527 ply's - PDL 3 passes - Radiosity backdrop- Render threads 4
memory: 79.4M
Time: 5m 6s

The same scene in 9.0
scene: 508,527 ply's - PDL 3 passes - Radiosity backdrop- Render threads 4
memory: 79.4M
Time: 6m 21s

Not the blistering increase I was expecting plus 9.3 is showing shadowing errors in the render . . . I'll stay with 9.0 now I have to delete this off my machine again . . . :bangwall:
gp

Chilton
11-20-2007, 08:54 AM
Just rename it.

-Chilton

gpdesigner
11-20-2007, 09:03 AM
Just rename it.

-Chilton

Rename what . . i stupid . . . :D
gp

Chilton
11-20-2007, 09:15 AM
Well, once you rename it, it will be difficult to tell you what it is, because I won't know what you've named it. What's in a name?

But I'm referring to the Hub. I believe most people rename it with a variety of curse words, though we are working on a fix for it that will be available soon, and which should make it actually work right all the time. Some people never have problems with it, oddly enough. There are a number of factors that contribute to its flakiness, all of which are being addressed.

-Chilton

gpdesigner
11-20-2007, 09:31 AM
*spanish accent* ha ha Chill-ton you so funny . . . . :D
Thanks for the info, I usually just -0 but that could work too.
hey I just want to say thank you . . as a Mac LW techie on the inside. Keep lookin' out for us Mac users, we get left behind a lot . . . I am sure waiting for a 64 Bit version that would justify my Mac Pro
Peace
gp

Steamthrower
11-20-2007, 10:19 AM
But I'm referring to the Hub. I believe most people rename it with a variety of curse words, though we are working on a fix for it that will be available soon, and which should make it actually work right all the time. Some people never have problems with it, oddly enough. There are a number of factors that contribute to its flakiness, all of which are being addressed.

Yes, oddly enough, on the Mac I have never had any problems with the Hub. On Windows however it simply doesn't work for me.

On the Mac (10.4.10) Layout has never crashed on me except for one time, when I loaded a 120,000 polygon scene and pressed "-" or something before it was fully loaded. I therefore was treated to the spinning beachball of death.

But other than that - I am completely happy with 9.3 UB except for the lack of plugin availability like Saslite.