PDA

View Full Version : Alternative to FPrime?



BaseZero
01-18-2008, 09:01 AM
So… just wondering if anyone knows of a "Leopard-Compatible" alternative to FPrime in terms of a real-time render preview "utility / plug-in"?

I love FPrime and when it's on, it's IMHO one of the greatest things to happen to 3D since the creation of LW, but seriously, we need to move forward with operating systems here due to the demands of other applications and FPrime and its capabilities is the only thing holding us up at this point.

I'll even go with a temporary fix at this point, but we really need to upgrade platforms.

Anyone? :help:

deg
01-18-2008, 06:06 PM
You could always install Windows and enjoy the plethora of working software on that platform, including LightWave 64-bit and FPrime.


Yeah sure, and all the instability that comes with working in Windows to boot, LOL.

Ah Worley Labs, where is our sO LONG overdue UB FPrime? <sigh>

deg

3dworks
01-19-2008, 03:10 AM
i'm experiencing more crashes under win x64 or XP32 than running under OSX. most of those are fprime related, i guess, but some are not. it is probably related to handle very large projects all the time - OSX seems to have the better memory management, i can work with much larger projects on it without out of memory issues.

unfortunately, even win x64 does not appear to resolve all problems with scenes needing more than 2 GB of RAM, as it can crash periodically after working with fprime. best is to quit LW and reload the scene before sending the final fprime rendering on its way.

definitely, from my experience i can't say that windows is generally instable, but OSX is solid as a rock compared to it.

of course, i'm getting tired to boot in x64 mode just to use the processing power of my 8 core for an fprime rendering...

markus

deg
01-19-2008, 11:07 AM
What instability? Windows instability is an urban myth at this point. I can't remember XP or Vista ever being unstable. In fact Windows is probably the most rock solid platform at the moment. The guy asked a genuine question, so don't spew out that horse ****. It's OK that you like OSX, but it clearly has it's issues when it comes to software development on that platform. Especially since Apple messed up with their Cocoa idiocy. Do you see a lot of 64-bit compiles for OSX? No, thought not...


I am not trying to get your guff up or anything neverko, and I'm not "spewing horse****" either. Just expressing my experience, not gunning for a platform opinion war. Not my style.

Fact is, I have a terrible time with Windows myself, and I run very clean and upkept rigs (compulsive peeve of mine).

I am glad your are running smoothly on Windows, but that has never been the case in my experience, running both Mac and PCs.

deg

deg
01-19-2008, 11:12 AM
definitely, from my experience i can't say that windows is generally instable, but OSX is solid as a rock compared to it.

Indeed, I concur, Windows is not all bad, I just have much better experience stability-wise with Mac, by comparison.

But I can only ever speak form my own experience, and I do not in any way consider my experience to be the be-all-to-end-all experience of all user experience. That would be silly IMO.

Now, where's my UB FPrime Worley Labs? < chop chop already>

deg

JonW
01-19-2008, 04:35 PM
I use both XP 64 for Lightwave and OS 10.3.9 for everything else. The PC work very well but the MAC has needed to be re-started a few times, but it does have more software and I use it more.

Darth Mole
01-21-2008, 04:33 AM
Off-topic alert... Off-topic alert...

Phil
01-21-2008, 04:50 AM
There is no alternative. VIPER is the only other option, but mosaic mode is horribly broken and actually I cannot get it to preview anything other than the backdrop, which is troubling.

F9 is my friend.

deg
01-21-2008, 10:12 AM
There is no alternative. VIPER is the only other option, but mosaic mode is horribly broken and actually I cannot get it to preview anything other than the backdrop, which is troubling.

F9 is my friend.


Use Normal and hit F5 to open the Surface Editor and VIPER will show you what you want to see.

Have to do until Worley gets the job done. Jeez, how long can it take to re-compile a plugin?

deg

Steamthrower
01-21-2008, 10:43 AM
Have to do until Worley gets the job done. Jeez, how long can it take to re-compile a plugin?

The email I received from Worley Labs says that they're "working on Sasquatch and Fprime" for Mac UB. I must confess that I'm nonplussed a bit as well...it's not like they majorly have to rewrite code or anything.

Darth Mole
01-21-2008, 12:15 PM
I rather think they do to make it jump through LW's flaming hoops. Plus, I bet he's trying to get Sasquatch working with FPrime. I bet that's a non-trivial task. Fortunately Final gather works pretty quickly - often faster than FPrime for simple scenes.

You could always buy a faster computer I suppose - one of those new 3.2GHz 8-cores would be nice!

dwburman
01-21-2008, 01:50 PM
Use Normal and hit F5 to open the Surface Editor and VIPER will show you what you want to see.

Have to do until Worley gets the job done. Jeez, how long can it take to re-compile a plugin?

deg

And sometimes you have to select a surface in the surface editor before anything will show up.

Right now, for me, LW is unstable on both OS X and WinXP. The OSs themselves seem to be pretty stable but not LW 9.3.1.

And it's easy to forget and over look, but if you hit F11 LW will render only the selected object. Also, there's limited region for quicker test renders. Of course, neither are substitutes for FPRIME.

paul summers
01-22-2008, 10:08 AM
We all seem to be on a road to no-ware RE LW 9.3.1 and FPRIME on the mac

ONE WORD "ROADMAP"

BaseZero
01-22-2008, 02:23 PM
I do know about limited region, VIPER and of course F9 renders, but when you're scenes are pushing 500,000,000 polys with Sasquatch shaders, trees, radiosity… etc, those options just take too long, hence the question for an alternative. It would have to be heads and shoulders over FPrime for it to remain a lasting solution, believe me, when FPrime is back in action, we'll be among the first to upgrade. :)

So… is someone suggesting now that Sasquatch is broken as well with Leopard? What is the dirt on that? I didn't know if that was the case… is it? (as I slowly retract my hand… holding the Leopard upgrade disc from the optical disc drive…) 8~

Steamthrower
01-23-2008, 07:14 AM
So… is someone suggesting now that Sasquatch is broken as well with Leopard? What is the dirt on that? I didn't know if that was the case… is it?
On Worley's site, it says that Sasquatch doesn't work with Leopard.

when you're scenes are pushing 500,000,000 polys
Is that a typo? Did you mean 500,000?

Andyjaggy
01-23-2008, 09:55 AM
Lightwave can't render 500 million polys. That's silly talk.

Steamthrower
01-23-2008, 12:01 PM
I'm pretty certain I've rendered 700,000 polies before, more or less, with no problems, but I definitely thought that 500,000,000 was a bit over the RAM limit. :D

Captain Obvious
01-23-2008, 01:07 PM
For me it's completely the other way around, stability wise. Also the OpenGL performance of OSX is pretty dire compared to Windows. I hoped Apple would fix this for Leopard, but it's still horrible. Everyone who uses both systems seems to agree on the OGL issue.
You complain about people perpetuating urban myths, and then you do it yourself? Nice. OpenGL performance in OS X is pretty darn good, if you use the right paths. When Maxon switched to the methods recomended by Apple, Cinema 4D achieved OGL performance parity between Win and Mac.

BaseZero
01-23-2008, 03:52 PM
On Worley's site, it says that Sasquatch doesn't work with Leopard.

I checked Worley's site, I couldn't find where it says Sas doesn't work with Leopard… I did find the statement for FPrime however… :thumbsup:


Is that a typo? Did you mean 500,000?
:) Hehe… guess I musta mis-read something there… the 500 million polys was a bit "high" lol… here is a screen shot of the actual scene stats. Sorry for the mixup… :ohmy:
54073


Lightwave can't render 500 million polys. That's silly talk.
…although, now you have possibly set me up for a challenge…… hmmm… (Wow! Get that cat some Slim-Fast!)

RTSchramm
01-23-2008, 04:35 PM
Anyone who bashes windows believing that the MAC is superior, needs to look as the facts:

1. Windows averages 4 security vulnerabilities per month
2. The Mac averages 20+ security vulnerablities per month
3. Windows XP SP3 ships with over a million hardware drivers
4. The MAC, a small handfull at the most.
5. Windows Vista can support over 2.2 million hardware devices after the first installation.
6. The MAC, not even close.
7. The WIndows OS can run on hundreds of thousands of custom hardware motherboard configurations.
8. THe MAC cannot.

SO try writing an Operating System that can run over 2.2 million hardware devices, and over 250 million pieces of software and then tell me how much better the MAC is.

The MAC is a nice computer, and I like OS X with its simplicistic user interface, but give the Windows OS credit where its due.

Also note that 95% of ALL blue screens of death are due to incorrectly written software and hardware drivers, and are not the fault of the WIndows Operating System.

I'm a network administrator, and in every audit so far our WIndows workstations always had the lease security issues over our MAC and LINUX workstations.

Rich

RonGC
01-23-2008, 05:35 PM
Anyone who bashes windows believing that the MAC is superior, needs to look as the facts:

1. Windows averages 4 security vulnerabilities per month
2. The Mac averages 20+ security vulnerablities per month
3. Windows XP SP3 ships with over a million hardware drivers
4. The MAC, a small handfull at the most.
5. Windows Vista can support over 2.2 million hardware devices after the first installation.
6. The MAC, not even close.
7. The WIndows OS can run on hundreds of thousands of custom hardware motherboard configurations.
8. THe MAC cannot.

SO try writing an Operating System that can run over 2.2 million hardware devices, and over 250 million pieces of software and then tell me how much better the MAC is.

The MAC is a nice computer, and I like OS X with its simplicistic user interface, but give the Windows OS credit where its due.

Also note that 95% of ALL blue screens of death are due to incorrectly written software and hardware drivers, and are not the fault of the WIndows Operating System.

I'm a network administrator, and in every audit so far our WIndows workstations always had the lease security issues over our MAC and LINUX workstations.

Rich

That seems to contradict what University and Research IT departments are saying. A lot of these institutions have or are moving over to Macs because they found that they have less problems with the Mac servers than they do with the Windows side and the Mac can run windows and linux and unix and Mac OSX etc.

These same institutions have publicly stated this and i doubt that they are lying.

Ron

RTSchramm
01-23-2008, 09:07 PM
Tell me who they are, because they are the minority. I work for the DoD and MACs are out and Windows are in, mainly because of the large number of security vulnerabilities each month on the MAC computers. ITs that simple.

Microsoft also address security issues quicker than their MAC counterpart.

Rich

RonGC
01-23-2008, 09:31 PM
Tell me who they are, because they are the minority. I work for the DoD and MACs are out and Windows are in, mainly because of the large number of security vulnerabilities each month on the MAC computers. ITs that simple.

Microsoft also address security issues quicker than their MAC counterpart.

Rich

Cartersville City Schools
University of Wisconsin.
Bemidji State University
Arizona State University
Microarray Centre
Harvard IIC
Induquímica Laboratorios
Thrust Belt Imaging

Just to name a few, Mac is big in science, bio-genetics, Genome research, etc, A lot of the Universities in the states are using more and more the Mac platform. This is all documented and is readily available on the internet if you just choose to look.

I can see the DOD, they are security paranoid. And they are also fickle when it comes to operating systems, next week they could change their minds again and be back on Macs, who knows for sure?

Ron

RonGC
01-23-2008, 10:39 PM
Heres a few more world class institutions and a few small universities, all doing cutting edge research with Mac and Mac super Cluster computing.

American Museum of Natural History
Hartford Hospital Stroke Clinic
UCLA Brain Imaging Research
Vertex Pharmaceuticals
Wolfram Research
University of California, Irvine
University of Calgary
Scripps Institution of Oceanography
University of Maryland
Bowie State University
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Virginia Tech
COLSA Corporation
University of Nottingham
Stanford University
Michigan Technic Corporation
Kent State University
Numerical Algorithms Group
Cornell University
University of Otago, New Zealand
London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine
Donald Danforth Plant Science Center
Santa Monica UCLA Medical Center
Center for Inherited Disease Research
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
Exagen Diagnostics
Chesapeake Medical Imaging
Hartford Hospital Stroke Clinic

Many, Many more out there.

Ron

Phil
01-23-2008, 11:08 PM
Wasn't this thread about FPrime alternatives?

RonGC
01-23-2008, 11:25 PM
Wasn't this thread about FPrime alternatives?

Yes it was and still is, unfortunately at this time there isn't any alternative to Fprime.

Sorry for going off topic.

Ron

BigHache
01-24-2008, 06:22 AM
Does that mean Kray is not a solution? My understanding was FP and Kray were fairly similar, at least enough to seem like competing products.

I ask because I own neither and am looking to own one of them. I'm also purchasing a new computer in the next month and I'm not waiting on Leopard compatibility. The direction I'm leaning towards based on the comments I've been reading about FP, and Leopard, etc. is to build a Win64 machine and just run LW on it. I like my Mac but I'm fairly indifferent over the OS at this point.

Phil
01-24-2008, 06:30 AM
Does that mean Kray is not a solution? My understanding was FP and Kray were fairly similar, at least enough to seem like competing products.

I ask because I own neither and am looking to own one of them. I'm also purchasing a new computer in the next month and I'm not waiting on Leopard compatibility. The direction I'm leaning towards based on the comments I've been reading about FP, and Leopard, etc. is to build a Win64 machine and just run LW on it. I like my Mac but I'm fairly indifferent over the OS at this point.

Kray isn't a previewer, is it? As a renderer, FPrime has limited use due to the numerous limitations. As a previewer, though, it's great. Except for those things it doesn't support (e.g. new nodes).

RonGC
01-24-2008, 09:43 AM
Fprime was all about speed, Kray isnt. Kray is a rendering engine, and can do nice work just that Fprime would beat it hands down in rendering time. Fprime would do the render in passes, each better quality than the last so you had to wait only a few seconds to get enough quality to see what you needed to adjust in your scene, this made it very handy for adjusting lighting textures etc. There is nothing like it in any other 3d app out there.

Kray is a nice render engine though. But i still prefer the warmth of the native LW renderer, and with the new radiosity improvements it renders pretty darn fast.

Also why switch from the Mac, under Boot camp the Mac runs windows LW on par with the win machine. I understand that even the 64 version runs well.

That way you have the best of both worlds.

Ron

Iain
01-24-2008, 09:51 AM
I think it's pretty well known that Kray is now much faster than FPrime-and has certain quality advantages.

It doesn't give the real time feedback of FPrime so a lot of people are using both.

RonGC
01-24-2008, 10:03 AM
Well thats good info, since i wasn't aware of that. But it still cant play to Fprimes strength which is as you say real time feedback.

And that is what fprime was really designed to do, not be a replacement render engine but a real time adjustment tool. When it was released that is what all the demo videos at worleys site focused on.

It just seemed to take on its own life as a render solution by users when they found it could out speed the native renderer in GI and radiosity on older versions of Lightwave.

Ron

BigHache
01-24-2008, 11:01 AM
Also why switch from the Mac, under Boot camp the Mac runs windows LW on par with the win machine. I understand that even the 64 version runs well.

That way you have the best of both worlds.
Budget is the main reason, and having that 2nd budget system dedicated to LW is the other. I'm looking at building a system for less than what the low-end Mac Minis cost which gets me more machine.


Phil, thanks for the clarification.

RonGC
01-24-2008, 11:08 AM
Well you are the one spending the money so it is your decision and nobody else's. And if all you do is LW then that works.

However on the Mac you have shake for compositing, FinalCut pro for video both heavy hitters for good prices. What ever you choose keep the Mac gear it gives you more options for the future. Why limit yourself.

Ron

deg
01-24-2008, 12:04 PM
Also why switch from the Mac, under Boot camp the Mac runs windows LW on par with the win machine. I understand that even the 64 version runs well.



Is that true Ron, does Windows LW64 run OK under Mac w/Bootcamp?

I have been wondering about that of late...

Thanks,
deg

Captain Obvious
01-24-2008, 12:04 PM
Fprime would do the render in passes, each better quality than the last so you had to wait only a few seconds to get enough quality to see what you needed to adjust in your scene, this made it very handy for adjusting lighting textures etc. There is nothing like it in any other 3d app out there.
Uh, yeah there is. None of them are as good as FPrime, in my opinion, but it's there.



Also why switch from the Mac, under Boot camp the Mac runs windows LW on par with the win machine. I understand that even the 64 version runs well.
Running Windows on a Mac is the same thing as buying a PC and running Windows on that. Except you have to pay more money, since retail copies of Windows are expensive.

RonGC
01-24-2008, 12:48 PM
http://www.newtek.com/forums/showthread.php?t=78063

Check the above link, tells you what you need to know. But yes it does work, in the link they point to some drivers you will need.

Ron

RonGC
01-24-2008, 12:50 PM
Uh, yeah there is. None of them are as good as FPrime, in my opinion, but it's there.



Running Windows on a Mac is the same thing as buying a PC and running Windows on that. Except you have to pay more money, since retail copies of Windows are expensive.

True, still cheaper than a new machine though:thumbsup:

Ron

deg
01-24-2008, 12:52 PM
Is that true Ron, does Windows LW64 run OK under Mac w/Bootcamp?

I have been wondering about that of late...

Thanks,
deg

Addendum: And with Leopard, as I notice Leopard comes w/Bootcamp now.

I am still on Tiger as I had heard there were some issues with LW and Leopard, not sure of it though.

deg

RonGC
01-24-2008, 12:58 PM
Issues with Leopard seem to vary if you are on UB or not. I don't use the UB version much as i find the CFM rock stable under Leopard, plus all my plugins still work. Will move over to the UB full time when it develops a little further.

I am not using Lightwave often for commercial projects now, retired and just having fun. Even when using LW in money making projects it was just for making idents, motion graphics, etc for the video productions i was making a living from.

Your own milage may vary.

Ron

deg
01-24-2008, 01:20 PM
Thanks Ron. :)

Wait, can you run the CFM version (and all it's plugin (including FPrime) OK on a Mac Pro Intel rig?

deg

3dworks
01-24-2008, 02:56 PM
Is that true Ron, does Windows LW64 run OK under Mac w/Bootcamp?

I have been wondering about that of late...

Thanks,
deg

running fine here...

markus

akademus
01-24-2008, 03:37 PM
Lightwave can't render 500 million polys. That's silly talk.

It can! All you need is a reeeeeeaaaaally big computer. It doesn't matter whether is a Mac or PC, all it needs is to be really huge.

Back to topic, there is no alternative to Fprime, not even on a worldwide PC platform.

BaseZero
01-24-2008, 08:42 PM
Also why switch from the Mac, under Boot camp the Mac runs windows LW on par with the win machine. I understand that even the 64 version runs well.

That way you have the best of both worlds.

Ron

Yes, Fprime is needed for the real-time feedback, rendering is handled by LW itself since we're using some plugs that FPrime doesn't render.

As for the Windows side, we're running Parallels and WinXP… so a dual install might be a solution we could use till Worley gets things firmed up in terms of an upgrade.

Everyone have a great weekend!

Phil
01-25-2008, 12:26 AM
Thanks Ron. :)

Wait, can you run the CFM version (and all it's plugin (including FPrime) OK on a Mac Pro Intel rig?

deg

You can, but neither CFM LW nor FPrime will be supported by the vendors due to Rosetta being imperfect and also because debugging software under Rosetta is either very difficult or impossible (for reasons that escape me at the moment).

dsol
01-25-2008, 11:20 AM
Running Windows on a Mac is the same thing as buying a PC and running Windows on that. Except you have to pay more money, since retail copies of Windows are expensive.

That's true - but you can get OEM versions of Windows which are much cheaper. I know companies like Dabs allow you to buy an OEM copy so long as you buy it with a piece of hardware - like a hard drive. It's handy to know as retail upgrade boxes are damn expensive too!

deg
01-25-2008, 11:44 AM
running fine here...

markus


Hmmm, very interesting Markus.

Do you do this just so you can continue to use CFM plugins, such as FPrime?

FPrime does work with it then, correct?

That would mean perhaps I could still use my Hyperstars, Hyperspace, and Hyperglow plugins using the CFM version running on my Intel Mac Pro, correct?

Never dawned on me (d'oh!) to run the CFM version on my Intel Mac. If it does indeed run works fine (plugin included), you just made my day. :)

I'd say that's a pretty could alternative for FPrime for now, anywho.

BTW, is CFM any slower than UB on the Intel Mac? Is has to be right, or what would be the reason to even compile a UB version of LW...?

Thanks,
deg

deg
01-25-2008, 11:46 AM
You can, but neither CFM LW nor FPrime will be supported by the vendors due to Rosetta being imperfect and also because debugging software under Rosetta is either very difficult or impossible (for reasons that escape me at the moment).

Ut oh. Maybe I hadn't get my hopes up too quick... :(

Thanks Phil,
deg

deg
01-25-2008, 11:52 AM
One last thing, does CFM run as a separate entity, with it own pref files, etc. autonomous from the UB version when installed on the same machine?

Thanks much,
dega

Lightwolf
01-25-2008, 04:59 PM
One last thing, does CFM run as a separate entity, with it own pref files, etc. autonomous from the UB version when installed on the same machine?

Yes, they are even stored in different locations.

Cheers,
Mike

deg
01-25-2008, 05:10 PM
Hey thanks Mike, I appreciate that info. :)

Off-hand, where are the CFM prefs stored, in a folder in the Preferences folder, like the UBs are?

deg

Lightwolf
01-25-2008, 06:55 PM
Off-hand, where are the CFM prefs stored, in a folder in the Preferences folder, like the UBs are?

I'm not on my Mac right now, but if I remember correctly they are stored right in the Preferences folder, not in a folder within that. So they don't collide.

Cheers
Mike

BigHache
01-25-2008, 07:00 PM
Newegg (http://www.newegg.com/) carries Windows OEM.

deg
01-25-2008, 07:09 PM
I'm not on my Mac right now, but if I remember correctly they are stored right in the Preferences folder, not in a folder within that. So they don't collide.

Cheers
Mike


Thanks much Mike. I'll install it tomorrow and check it all out. :)

deg

deg
01-25-2008, 07:15 PM
Newegg (http://www.newegg.com/) carries Windows OEM.


Thanks BigHache. I am weighing buying Bootcamp and Windows as an option too. Those are legit copies, correct?

And BTW, why the heck is Windows sO expensive??? $300 regular price for XP Pro @ PCMall.com???

Now, if I recall correctly, LightWave64 needs XP Professional to run, is that true?

I may be wrong, but from some reports, I'm still wary of Vista...

deg

Lightwolf
01-25-2008, 07:20 PM
Now, if I recall correctly, LightWave64 needs XP Professional to run, is that true?
It is the only 64bit version of XP that is available.

I may be wrong, but from some reports, I'm still wary of Vista...

I wouldn't worry. I'm positively surprised by it (Vista64 Ultimate). For your needs even the lowly 64bit Home version will do.

The System Builder version should do it:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16832116204
(I'm not sure on the licensing in the US though, in the EU you can buy it legally without any problems).

Cheers,
Mike

deg
01-25-2008, 07:31 PM
It is the only 64bit version of XP that is available.

I wouldn't worry. I'm positively surprised by it (Vista64 Ultimate). For your needs even the lowly 64bit Home version will do.

The System Builder version should do it:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16832116204
(I'm not sure on the licensing in the US though, in the EU you can buy it legally without any problems).

Cheers,
Mike

Dude, I can't thank you enough for getting me up to speed on this. :)

However, in a nutshell, what is a "System Builder" version, as compared to the regular Home version, or the Ultimate version?

Thanks tons,
deg

Lightwolf
01-25-2008, 07:37 PM
However, in a nutshell, what is a "System Builder" version, as compared to the regular Home version, or the Ultimate version?

Software wise exactly the same as the equivalent retail version (i.e. System Builder Home/SB vs. regular Home).
However, the licenses are meant for people/companies that assemble and sell PCs.
The main differences:
* The regular version includes both the 32bit or 64bit version of the OS (you can only legally install either one though). For the SB version you need to decide when you purchase.
* No tech support from Microsoft (whoopie doo... big deal)
* You can't transfer it to another machine - however, in practice you can.

The Vista versions that are included with normal PCs are SB versions as well btw.

Cheers,
Mike

deg
01-25-2008, 07:38 PM
Oh duh, SB are for folks that, well, build systems, d'oh!

My only question then would be, you can install it on a Mac Pro OK, correct?

Even though I didn't build my Mac Pro...

I don't build systems so I don't know if you need to know a secret SB Microsoft hand-shake or code or something, or be able to prove you are actually a SB...

deg

deg
01-25-2008, 07:44 PM
Software wise exactly the same as the equivalent retail version (i.e. System Builder Home/SB vs. regular Home).
However, the licenses are meant for people/companies that assemble and sell PCs.
The main differences:
* The regular version includes both the 32bit or 64bit version of the OS (you can only legally install either one though). For the SB version you need to decide when you purchase.
* No tech support from Microsoft (whoopie doo... big deal)
* You can't transfer it to another machine - however, in practice you can.

The Vista versions that are included with normal PCs are SB versions as well btw.

Cheers,
Mike

Ah thanks again dude. I will look into it.

I'll try my CFM first, but if that doesn't work to my expectations, I guess I'll shell out the cash for more OS software if I have to.

Tech support, LOL. Yeah, I've never called one ever. Manuals are easier and less time consuming for me. RTFM.

deg

Lightwolf
01-25-2008, 07:45 PM
Oh duh, SB are for folks that, well, build systems, d'oh!
Yeah, kind of obvious if you think about it :D


My only question then would be, you can install it on a Mac Pro OK, correct?

Yes. The DVD is exactly the same... except that you only get one (32bit or 64bit) instead of the two included in the normal retail package.

Cheers,
Mike

jasonwestmas
01-25-2008, 08:28 PM
windows is pretty solid this year ;) crashes are usually because of buggy software and not an MS issue per say.

3dworks
01-26-2008, 05:13 AM
Hmmm, very interesting Markus.

Do you do this just so you can continue to use CFM plugins, such as FPrime?

FPrime does work with it then, correct?

That would mean perhaps I could still use my Hyperstars, Hyperspace, and Hyperglow plugins using the CFM version running on my Intel Mac Pro, correct?

Never dawned on me (d'oh!) to run the CFM version on my Intel Mac. If it does indeed run works fine (plugin included), you just made my day. :)

I'd say that's a pretty could alternative for FPrime for now, anywho.

BTW, is CFM any slower than UB on the Intel Mac? Is has to be right, or what would be the reason to even compile a UB version of LW...?

Thanks,
deg

wow, what a posting activity ;)

exactly, i'm running win xp 64 on a mac to use LW with fprime under windows. it is currently the only way to use all 8 cores in a macpro for preview and rendering speed, but has an additional benefit to load and render projects which are not possible to render under OSX anyway (even using leopard), given the 2G RAM limit of 32 bit standard LW versions. we mac users will have to wait for a completely new version of LW to UB to be able to use the 64 bit power of OSX 10.5. ...and to make things even better ...there is still no statement about this from newtek.

cheers

markus

Captain Obvious
01-26-2008, 05:47 AM
Lightwave uses Carbon. Carbon is largely 32-bit. Don't expect a 64-bit Lightwave for the Mac any time soon.

But surely the UB is limited to four gigs of memory, rather than two?

3dworks
01-26-2008, 07:16 AM
Lightwave uses Carbon. Carbon is largely 32-bit. Don't expect a 64-bit Lightwave for the Mac any time soon.

But surely the UB is limited to four gigs of memory, rather than two?

afaik LW is limited to 2G RAM on mac, but it would be good if chilton could tell us all the hard facts from the developer's point of view ;)

dsol
01-26-2008, 08:00 AM
Last time I tested it (about a year ago), the 32bit CFM Mac version could use more RAM than the 32bit windows version. I've certainly managed to load in large multi-million poly scenes on my G5 that refused to load on my Athlon64 running XP pro (32 bit).

I imagine that under Tiger 10.3 - LW could use up to 3GB or maybe slightly more (not too familiar with OSX's reserved memory map). Under Leopard it might be able to use a full 4GB for a 32bit process as it'd be running the OS in a 64 bit space (just like Vista/XP 64)

Captain Obvious
01-26-2008, 10:07 AM
Tiger was 64-bit to such a point that the operating system could address pretty much any amount of memory, but any normal applications running couldn't use more than four gigs. If you had a machine with 16 gigs of memory, you could have Maya using four gigs, modo using another four, Shake another four, etc. Lightwave SHOULD be able to use four gigs as well (four each, that is - Layout, Modeler and Hub). In Leopard, you can have 64-bit programs running normally and using any amount of memory.

3dworks
01-26-2008, 10:14 AM
Last time I tested it (about a year ago), the 32bit CFM Mac version could use more RAM than the 32bit windows version. I've certainly managed to load in large multi-million poly scenes on my G5 that refused to load on my Athlon64 running XP pro (32 bit).

I imagine that under Tiger 10.3 - LW could use up to 3GB or maybe slightly more (not too familiar with OSX's reserved memory map). Under Leopard it might be able to use a full 4GB for a 32bit process as it'd be running the OS in a 64 bit space (just like Vista/XP 64)

this is confirming what's my experience: OSX does a better memory management job, leaving more RAM for applications like LW, but, afaik only photoshop can use 3G on tiger and in general 2G is the limit per app using a GUI. no limits for commandline apps, though.

markus

deg
01-26-2008, 10:33 AM
Ah, I'm learning so much, thanks all guys. :)

So bottom line, to get all my plugins to work again (including FPrime, the topic of this thread) on my Mac Pro:

1.) Try running the CFM.

or

2.) Get Leopard with Bootcamp, and a copy of Vista Home System Builder and I should be good to go for now, until the day, NewTek complies a full UB version, correct?

Now I would assume (?) LightWave would run better with option #2 (given that it's 64-bit)...?

deg

deg
01-29-2008, 02:16 PM
Well, got my CFM installed and running with FPrime. It's definitely way slower render-wise, but I can set-up surfaces in CFM using FPrime, and move back to UB for final renders.

I also ordered Leopard and Vista, and I will give that route a try too.

Thanks guys for all your help and insights, I really appreciate it. :)

deg

Phil
01-29-2008, 11:47 PM
there is still no statement about this from newtek.

cheers

markus

Harsh, I feel. Apple pulled the rug out from under developers who were using Carbon in good faith. Until late last year, 64-bit Carbon implementations were available. Then Apple removed them and told anyone wanting to deliver a 64-bit application on OS X that they would have to use Cocoa. No 'if's, 'and's or 'but's

So....having effectively rewritten LW once, to get it into UB form, NewTek now have to rip it apart again to satisfy an ego trip from Apple. I doubt any developer is particularly amused about this stunt - from Autodesk to Adobe, the story is very likely the same.

In this kind of situation, you are unlikely to get a statement from anyone until the heavy construction is out of the way and a timeline can be predicted.

3dworks
01-30-2008, 02:31 AM
Harsh, I feel. Apple pulled the rug out from under developers who were using Carbon in good faith. Until late last year, 64-bit Carbon implementations were available. Then Apple removed them and told anyone wanting to deliver a 64-bit application on OS X that they would have to use Cocoa. No 'if's, 'and's or 'but's

So....having effectively rewritten LW once, to get it into UB form, NewTek now have to rip it apart again to satisfy an ego trip from Apple. I doubt any developer is particularly amused about this stunt - from Autodesk to Adobe, the story is very likely the same.

In this kind of situation, you are unlikely to get a statement from anyone until the heavy construction is out of the way and a timeline can be predicted.

definitely not a clever move by apple, i agree - on the other side, this happened 6 months ago, and in the meantime leopard was released, so at this point some kind of communication to the user about LW's future on the mac would me more than appreciated. it is the sort of information which could influence a switch away from LW or the sticking to it for some of us...

deg
01-30-2008, 07:37 AM
Harsh, I feel. Apple pulled the rug out from under developers who were using Carbon in good faith. Until late last year, 64-bit Carbon implementations were available. Then Apple removed them and told anyone wanting to deliver a 64-bit application on OS X that they would have to use Cocoa. No 'if's, 'and's or 'but's

So....having effectively rewritten LW once, to get it into UB form, NewTek now have to rip it apart again to satisfy an ego trip from Apple.

Interesting. I wonder what the technical impetus behind this switch was, as I am not a programmer or developer so I have no clue as to the long or short term technical pros or cons of the issue.

deg

dsol
01-30-2008, 07:48 AM
No-one outside of Apple really knows, but I suspect that they're keen to move all software development on their platform to managed code. Just like Microsoft with .NET

It's understandable - it's much more "clean" and modern (and has fewer security vulnerabilities), but from a practical viewpoint it's a nightmare. And it pretty much kills all 64-bit cross-platform pro app development on the platform as far as I can tell :(

deg
01-30-2008, 08:10 AM
Well, perhaps with the long term goal in mind, we will all be the better for it after it all shakes out.

Birth always has its labor pains eh, and growth has it growing pains. Part of life in my experience, so I'll just roll with it as always.

In the end, given my long-time experience with Apple, for the most part I trust their call on stuff. Well, except for making me pay for QT Pro again with version 7, LOL.

Thanks for the response . )

deg

deg
01-30-2008, 03:31 PM
What's this I read, Boot camp only supports 32-Vista (http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/bootcamp.html)?

But the new Mac Pros can support 64-Vista (http://www.macrumors.com/2008/01/21/apple-quietly-intros-64-bit-windows-support-in-boot-camp/)...

I hope those 64 drivers come soon through software update...

deg

Captain Obvious
01-30-2008, 06:17 PM
Harsh, I feel. Apple pulled the rug out from under developers who were using Carbon in good faith. Until late last year, 64-bit Carbon implementations were available. Then Apple removed them and told anyone wanting to deliver a 64-bit application on OS X that they would have to use Cocoa. No 'if's, 'and's or 'but's
To be fair, though, Apple have been saying for how many years now? that we should be using Cocoa, and Carbon is just there to make the transition easier. And everyone I've spoken to about Cocoa thinks it's great (and I rather like it myself). I hate to pull out the Luxology card, but Matt Craig, one of their main software engineers and formerly NewTek's Mac guy, said that they're doing modo 302 as 64-bit Cocoa. Here's a quote from his blog:


Obj-C *does* in fact take about a day to get used to. Cocoa *is* amazingly cool and removes a *lot* of legacy code. Net result? The current plan is for there to be a 4-way fat binary (32-bit ppc and x86, 64-bit ppc and x86) to be released (along with actual modo features) as modo 302. This means free updates for anyone who has modo 301
So, porting all the relevant bits from Carbon to Cocoa in a point upgrade! Obviously, it is easier for Lux to do it, since they have less legacy code to worry about and no legacy plugins that break (since there are no compiled plugins, period), etc etc etc, so I'm not expecting NewTek to give me a 64-bit Cocoa version of LW 9.4 or anything. I'm just saying that the situation might not be quite as doom-and-gloom and whatnot as you might think.

Porting from Carbon to Cocoa doesn't really mean re-writing every single line of code in the application. It mostly means re-writing many of the ties to the operating system —*file IO, window and input management, that sort of thing. The majority of the code for Lightwave is probably more or less straight-up C. Porting that*to Cocoa should be reasonably easy.

Lightwolf
01-30-2008, 06:46 PM
I hate to pull out the Luxology card, but Matt Craig, one of their main software engineers and formerly NewTek's Mac guy, said that they're doing modo 302 as 64-bit Cocoa.
The only thing that I wonder about in that context: Since modo is quite new, why didn't they base it on Cocoa right from the start? :stumped:

Cheers,
Mike

Captain Obvious
01-31-2008, 04:40 AM
The only thing that I wonder about in that context: Since modo is quite new, why didn't they base it on Cocoa right from the start? :stumped:
Because they didn't think they needed to, I guess, and figured that using a different programming language for the Mac version seemed like a bad idea?

Lightwolf
01-31-2008, 04:51 AM
Because they didn't think they needed to, I guess, and figured that using a different programming language for the Mac version seemed like a bad idea?
Hey, and they are (apparently) very Mac friendly/centric. Just imagine how other developers fell about it that just see OSX as another platform to support...

Cheers,
Mike

Phil
01-31-2008, 05:59 AM
Heh. I just view my choice of OS platform as a stick to beat bored developers with :D:devil: :tongue:

Lightwolf
01-31-2008, 06:05 AM
Heh. I just view my choice of OS platform as a stick to beat bored developers with :D:devil: :tongue:
Given the amount of bored developers (i.e. none) I do wonder how bored you must be :D :tongue: :bangwall:

Cheers,
Mike
P.S. Yes, it's allright, we know each other ;)

deg
01-31-2008, 04:43 PM
I don't get it, Vista can't see my Mac partition or my other hard-drives?

And it refuses to accept my user name and password when trying to connect to my other Macs...

I had a feeling this was going to be a headache... :mad:

I am so in the weeds on this Windows stuff. Any help and/or insights are much appreciated.

deg

Lightwolf
01-31-2008, 04:47 PM
I don't get it, Vista can't see my Mac partition or my other hard-drives?
Nope. OSX uses a file system what windows doesn't support, and Apple doesn't provide a driver.
It is a bit easier the other way around.


And it refuses to accept my user name and password when trying to connect to my other Macs...

That's weird. Then again, I never used OSX shares from Windows, only the other way around (and that works o.k.-ish).

Cheers,
Mike

Lightwolf
01-31-2008, 04:54 PM
This might help:
http://forums.mactalk.com.au/showthread.php?p=425415

Cheers,
Mike

habañero
01-31-2008, 05:19 PM
There is a solution called Mac drive that I have been reasonably successful with, speed is not its biggest advantage ... The other way round there is an even more sketchy solution for NTFS writing that I didn't even bother try, it gives you some 4-5 Mb/s writes. Its possible to install it with limited hassle through macports.

Added on top of a giant cost saving for Apple in supporting both Cocoa and Carbon, there is the issue of accessibility -- All cocoa apps natively support assistive technologies. Likely it counts for something that Applescript works natively as well, not to mention the new scripting bridge technology ... Gigantic win for Apple and actually also for people with disabilities, while us mac users being landlocked to a single company, we willl likely benefit as well from focus going into a single support chain for developers.

Just a small example of the benefits; when LW moves to cocoa, while most or all existing plugins will break, we will then be able to write plugins for it in most important languages through the scripting bridge.

Lightwolf
01-31-2008, 05:23 PM
The other way round there is an even more sketchy solution for NTFS writing that I didn't even bother try, it gives you some 4-5 Mb/s writes.
http://code.google.com/p/macfuse/
This one? It should work quite well (at least it does on Linux).

Cheers,
Mike

deg
01-31-2008, 07:51 PM
Thanks so much again guys, you rock.

I will look this info over and see if I can bang out a solution (which I never stop until I do (unless overall diminishing returns begin to set in), as I'm kind obsessive compulsive when it comes to having my rigs all work right and together). :)

I'll let you know what I find out.

deg

deg
01-31-2008, 08:05 PM
One thing I just noticed; The 64-bit LW only says (Windows 2000/XP) in the download section... Yikes...

It does run in Vista-64 correct?

deg

Phil
01-31-2008, 11:08 PM
The other NTFS option, which is faster, from OS X side is from Paragon software. It's not bug-free (it seems to object to my BootCamp install and Finder windows get silently closed - working from the terminal, though, the same operations work). I have been waiting on a case resolution now for weeks.....they aren't great at keeping the user informed :(

MacDrive has been perfectly OK here for going the other way. However, version 7 is a complete pain because it forces activation against a serial number.....which can only be done once. If you blow away your Windows install (or it screws up on you), you cannot simply reactivate. You have to poke customer service for them to release the serial number for another activation. It's really, really annoying (and weekends basically leave you high and dry - as I found out to my cost and everlasting irritation). Version 6 didn't have the activation restriction, but you won't be able to use that one under Vista.... I've complained vigorously about this policy, in the hope that they would raise the ceiling to at least 3 activations, but without success. Customer service is apparently on their to-do list for some time after the heat death of the universe.

MacFuse is slow, though recent versions have made progress. The difficulty used to come from finding an NTFS implementation for it :

http://macntfs-3g.blogspot.com/

seems to be the current best option.

Lightwolf
02-01-2008, 02:48 AM
It does run in Vista-64 correct?

Yes.

Cheers,
Mike

3dworks
02-01-2008, 07:51 AM
i can too recommend paragon software's NTFS option. fortunately running without any kind of problems on 2 macs here (fingers crossed)! i'm also a bit upset with macdrive, because apparently there is not even a plan for releasing a 64 bit version. 2 weeks after i installed windows 32 i found out the severe memory restrictions when using LW with it and upgraded to x64, so now i'm without direct mac drive access.

m.

habañero
02-01-2008, 10:25 AM
On a sidenote, I stuck with fat32 for a particlar reason, being the ability to backup my XP partition through a slighty evil scheme where you use simple file copy to take the backup, and then if you want to restore you reinstall with the same disk. Then you simply unlock all locked files from osx, and do a simple file copy of the backup back over your fresh Xp install. Clearly not the most smooth approach to backup, but I have not had any problems with it and I don't keep any personal data whatsoever in that installation, its solely for 3D.

deg
02-01-2008, 10:32 AM
Customer service is apparently on their to-do list for some time after the heat death of the universe.

LMAO, too funny Phil! :D

Thanks for all the info guys! I'm kinda so tired of the art of system administration (for now) setting up my working modo-LightWave-Mac-Vista-Mac pipeline, that at this point I think I wil just stick with the base-option package of being able to at least see my Vista drive from my Mac if I have to transfer files.

I miss being an actual 3D artist so (for now (hopefully) back to the art of 3D for me, for now anywho. I will definitely bookmark this thread and refer back to your suggestions, as I am sure at some point (who knows, maybe as soon as tomorrow, LOL) I wil get frustrated and will need to tend to the Win-Mac hard-drive seeing/talk-to issue.

I may test out the 32GIG FAT version on another partition (as 3D is all it will be used for), IF Vista allows FAT, as I think it may not.

Thanks for all you help. Had to dig out of a foot+ of snow this morning so haven't got to the networking Vista to my Macs issue yet...

deg

deg
02-02-2008, 11:32 AM
The other NTFS option, which is faster, from OS X side is from Paragon software.


So Phil, are you saying Paragon Software can format an NTFS partition that can be used for Vista-64, and that can also be read and write from the Mac side?

Thanks,
deg

deg
02-02-2008, 02:19 PM
Hey, I have the Hyperspace, Hyperstars, Hyperglow plugins (http://www.ficatech.com/), and I believe they are only complied for 32-bit.

So I was wondering, does anyone know if you can you install and run LW 32-bit in Vista-64, and if so, will it run along-side and be automatous to LW 64-bit then, like CFM 32-bit is from UB on the Mac?

And thinking of that 32-bit plugin issue, it just occurred to me; is FPrime compiled to work in 64-bit?

Thanks guys,
deg

habañero
02-06-2008, 04:07 AM
Found this today;

http://hem.bredband.net/catacombae/hfsx.html

jasonwestmas
02-06-2008, 07:43 AM
One thing I just noticed; The 64-bit LW only says (Windows 2000/XP) in the download section... Yikes...

It does run in Vista-64 correct?

deg


You may find that the 64-bit version of FPrime gives you a differance in overall color in your renders when compared to a 32-bit version of FPrime and your 64-bit Lightwave Render. So if you are wanting to render with Fprime on multiple computers I would either use all 64 bit Fprime renders or All 32-bit Fprime renders.

Lightwolf
02-06-2008, 08:20 AM
So I was wondering, does anyone know if you can you install and run LW 32-bit in Vista-64, and if so, will it run along-side and be automatous to LW 64-bit then, like CFM 32-bit is from UB on the Mac?

Yes & Yes :)

Cheers,
Mike

deg
02-06-2008, 10:00 AM
Thanks guys :)

Yeah, I found the 64-Bit version, and yeah, it seem to render much darker eh.

And thanks for the link habañero. :)

deg

deg
02-07-2008, 04:47 PM
Here's a Q: I am in Vista-64, and I have all the Mac drivers loaded. It appears to map the Windows key to the Apple key not the Alt key, but the Apple key is what is used to move the camera in the Y axis, but now when I press it all I get is the Windows menu.

Anyone real quick know the way around this?

Thanks,
deg

deg
02-07-2008, 05:07 PM
And the Alt key that is still the Alt key doesn't seem to work...

deg

deg
02-07-2008, 06:01 PM
Never mind. RMB. Got it.

deg

pixym
02-13-2008, 05:57 PM
Yeah sure, and all the instability that comes with working in Windows to boot, LOL.

Ah Worley Labs, where is our sO LONG overdue UB FPrime? <sigh>

deg

Are you joking? I have a Mac pro INTEL ith windows only as operating system, and all works just fine!

Johnny
02-17-2008, 01:51 PM
Off-topic alert... Off-topic alert...


right on, DM!

this is a Mac LW board and a Mac-related LW thread. It's not the place to grind one's axe about which platform is better.

Always a good idea to read and understand the thread title before jumping in.


J