PDA

View Full Version : Integration Pool



Pages : 1 [2]

dccpro
02-01-2008, 05:35 PM
You need to read from beginning of thread!
xsi
LW
zbrush
modo
vue 5 Too but I think its junk!


I dont intend to buy houdini, so its not an option at this point! I have what I need!

cresshead
02-01-2008, 05:39 PM
it's 18 pages long..so i don't think so!

if you have what you need then hurray!...we're done!

well i'm off to watch a film...was entertaining decorating the floor!
see you next time for some wallpapering

bye

dccpro
02-01-2008, 05:41 PM
bye! enjoy your feature!

Mike_RB
02-01-2008, 05:42 PM
modo...been out YEARS and every update is a paid version...heck you have to PAY for the demo!...geez! and it's FAR FAR AWAY from being a full 3d app at all...if had jumped to modo from lightwave i'd be limited to stills and camera fly thoughts at best...no particles...no rigging...no bones...wonderful!..NOT:thumbsdow

Wrong.
modo 101, 201, and 301 were paid versions.

102, 103, 202, 203, 301(quickfix), and in q1-2008 302 are all free upgrades.

Not sure where you're getting your information from.

Lightwolf
02-01-2008, 06:42 PM
Wrong.
modo 101, 201, and 301 were paid versions.

102, 103, 202, 203, 301(quickfix), and in q1-2008 302 are all free upgrades.

That's updates vs. upgrades I suppose ;)

Cheers,
Mike

Mike_RB
02-01-2008, 06:51 PM
That's updates vs. upgrades I suppose ;)

Cheers,
Mike

Words are fun.

Lightwolf
02-01-2008, 07:00 PM
Words are fun.
Oohh.... endless joy. Now back on this thread as well :D

Cheers,
Mike

Stooch
02-01-2008, 07:04 PM
I have work thats better then anything on stoochs site thats for sure!
What is so impressive on his site? For someone to come at me like he did, his work should have been on a much higher level!
Yous can think what you want but in my eyes he made an @$$ of himself!


for the record i dont think my work is grand and never said it is (its amazing how people always tend to assume that i think my work is the tops, lol if anything im my own worst critic and quite aware of my limitations). My work gets me by and so does LW. You however have nothing to show at all yet have so much criticism for the software. if you do have some amazing stuff though feel free to share. You surely picked an obvious thing to criticize about LW however - for most people, including myself that used LW as early as 4.0, this separation at some point in the past was seen as an advantage and can list quite a few things off the top of the head that impacts everyday work FAR more. AND have offered plenty of advice on fixing it.

Stooch
02-01-2008, 07:09 PM
because the old stuff cant be tied to work i am presently doing, or work I have posted on other forums where my reputation is good!

Besides, that work is plenty good enough for me to speak about LW's short comings! Which was what stooch was questioning!

lol ditto buddy :) i have some moderately cool stuff im working on too. for two features in fact. one just got bought by sony, its called the wackness. naturally i cant show it either.

but anyway judging by the work you posted, i really dont see much CA or any work that really needs a combined LW. so whats alll the bitching about?

dccpro
02-01-2008, 07:38 PM
Your work is great stooch! You just pissed me off.

The work I am currently doing would benefit greatly from a unified program, and a better hair/fur system. I really hope they plan on doing something about an integrated quality hair system! SOON!

Stooch
02-01-2008, 07:42 PM
well the point i made about showing your work was not to call you out as mr abnranger likes to think (he just doesn't like me) it was to see why exactly you need this feature that you are so angry about. I just don't like when people ***** about software when they haven't even began pushing it in the slightest. its really bad form. sometimes i get like 20-30 crashes a day because of the dense scenes i have to push around. you want to talk about getting mad? no time. have to re launch lw and keep on trucking. Ever adjusted hundreds of emitter settings that got broken on load from scene? ?? now THATS something worthwhile to ***** to NT about. which i have by the way, but in a constructive way. and without citing doomsday and threatening to boycott LW.

Medi8or
02-01-2008, 07:43 PM
I don't know why this guys still around. This is oldtekerr. Or any other name he goes under.I would have guessed Bryphi7, but for all I know it's the same guy..

Maybe we should make a new poll?

Who is dccpro?

:)

dccpro
02-01-2008, 08:02 PM
I would have guessed Bryphi7, but for all I know it's the same guy..

Maybe we should make a new poll?

Who is dccpro?

:)
LOL!

dccpro
02-01-2008, 08:28 PM
I will come clean, cause it doesnt really matter if they once again ban me! At some point they will learn not to treat their paying customers poorly!

bryphi
bryphi7
oldteker
oldtekerr
thisguy
thatdude
dccpro

I must say you guys are pretty sharp! Cant get much past yous.

To NT,
I'll keep it clean and respectful from this point forward. If yous feel the need to ban my IP address once again, there is many more to use! Why make enemies of paying customers that will upgrade if yous do your part! This is your chance to end this animosity. Do you want enemies or do you want content paying customers?

yous have done a great job with the renderer. I hope that yous can do an equally good job with the rest! Quicker!

Balls in your court... See yous one way or another!:lwicon:

RedBull
02-01-2008, 09:03 PM
LightWave [8] released in June 2004 and was followed over the next 18 months by 5 updates, the last being 8.5 in October 2005. LightWave v9.0 shipped in July 2006 and less than a year and a half later we are on v9.3.1,

To be fair, LW9.0 was promised Q4 2005, and despite many people being assured it would ship in December, NT didn't even offer the Beta until the early 2006. Which means they were very misleading for the LW9 launch.

Also seeing as we were in Beta in Jan 06, and it's now Feb 08, it's over 2 years and we have very few productive updates, and many of the features that were suggested have not arrived, and third party tools are more broken than ever. Correct me if I'm wrong but both XSI and Maya have moved two complete versions in this time frame as LW has been stuck on 9.x


Can you tell me what Maya, XSI, and Max have planned for their releases over the next year or so? If you can, then perhaps we do have an unusual policy in place at the moment.

Not sure if it's unusual, but if letting 30 page threads on multiple parts of the forums, with seemingly nothing but frustrations from current and future LW9.x users is considered a good policy, i wouldn't like to see you change to a bad policy... It seems some open communication would go a long way to stop these kinds of threads.

Maya - Well we do know Joe Stam is continuing on Nucleus and that Fluids will be the next thing to done after the current cloth enhancements. (And we know it will be called Maya 2009)

XSI - These people are quite open about their future plans, Moondust,
A Node based workflow that is really cool has been shown at roadshows, and it's the worst kept secret in CG. A complete Node system that works in every part of XSI7. Many other goodies have been announced. (Updated version of MR will also be in XSI7) Renderman and various external renderer support.

Modo, we are well aware of the next version of Modo (302) we know many new features such as Physical Sky, and Symmetry Heal Brush, to name but a few of the publically announced, publically shown and even Modcasts, forum posts and Videos of it in action!

NT doesn't even offer a current demo version on their website, you really wonder how committed NT are to selling and marketing a product.
No posts from Jay, no 9.5 sneakpeeks, no word on next beta, no podcasts,
Newteks communication is becoming the poorest of all the companies...

I will note almost all of the 3D companies even have programmer blogs which enables people to find out the direction for most of this stuff, interviews, videos, roadshows, welcome to the future where companies do keep their customers informed, or they simply lose customers to those that do. Most corporate companies are learning from the lessons taught by open source software.

PS:
I only just read this thread, and what a bunch of rubbish it was to read... :)

dccpro
02-01-2008, 10:22 PM
yeah, you pretty much summed up what I was trying to say in my last 30 posts in 1!

Chuck you say keep the faith, but to be perfectly honest, yous arent giving us much to go on! except silence!

If you guys are busy doing great things then hype them up and show us! Yous may not be able to say what is being done in the next year, but if you cant show us a peak at whats coming in the next 3 months, I have to worry!

Chuck
02-01-2008, 10:46 PM
To be fair, LW9.0 was promised Q4 2005, and despite many people being assured it would ship in December, NT didn't even offer the Beta until the early 2006. Which means they were very misleading for the LW9 launch.

The point I was answering was an assertion that the cycles were 5 years long. I'm not sure in what respect you feel citing actual release dates for the last two cycles was unfair in response to that. And again, over here "misleading" means there was intent involved in giving estimates that subsequently weren't accurate given what the actual scope of the work turned out to be. There was no such intent.


Also seeing as we were in Beta in Jan 06, and it's now Feb 08, it's over 2 years and we have very few productive updates, and many of the features that were suggested have not arrived,

The scope of the work in those releases certainly is hugely productive for the overwhelming majority of users, and they've been as frequent if not more so than most other professional 3D applications. Aside from the information that modeling in Layout may not advance much more for 9.x the other important point that everyone knows is that the 9.x cycle isn't over, so it's no surprise if some of the proposed features aren't in yet - they're still coming. A lot of features came along that we hadn't given advance notice on.


and third party tools are more broken than ever.

We have most commercial third parties participating in our beta program and talking with us regularly. The 9.x series has seen huge advances in the SDK and the third party folks are finding lots of opportunity in that. And while there are instances of things we still need to address for specific third parties, things are in general far less broken than ever.



Correct me if I'm wrong but both XSI and Maya have moved two complete versions in this time frame as LW has been stuck on 9.x

Was the actual degree of change in their paid upgrades more or less than in the free updates that we delivered in the same time frame?




Not sure if it's unusual, but if letting 30 page threads on multiple parts of the forums, with seemingly nothing but frustrations from current and future LW9.x users is considered a good policy, i wouldn't like to see you change to a bad policy... It seems some open communication would go a long way to stop these kinds of threads.

You don't see threads like that on other company forums because most of them yank posts and ban users at any hint of anything outside of polite support questions and techniques discussions. I know of very few with the level of tolerance our forums offer. Tolerance comes at a cost.

dccpro
02-01-2008, 11:01 PM
Come on Chuck...
We know your not going to badmouth your own product, but...

With 9.0, we have reached the point where we can implement major changes at a radical pace


If this is a radical pace, we are in big trouble!
And you keep comparing LWs upgrades to the others... Its night and day!
These programs have the features already that we are faithfully waiting for NT to add to LW.

AbnRanger
02-01-2008, 11:51 PM
You need to read from beginning of thread!
xsi
LW
zbrush
modo
vue 5 Too but I think its junk!


I dont intend to buy houdini, so its not an option at this point! I have what I need!So, you have what you need...your solution is with XSI...a great integrated modeling and animation environment...so why the need to banter on for 20+ pages.
It seems you have trouble admiting your position was either wrong or not completely accurate...which it definitely was not. You know it, too. You know full well the staff at NT DID NOT set out to deceive their customers or make promises they KNEW they couldn't meet...just to sell seats. That's hyperbole....and you don't honestly believe it.
The real problem is, you just don't know how to back out of a disagreement gracefully, and with some measure of dignity...such as, "Maybe, I was a bit too hard there, or....I stand corrected, it just looked like a carrot was held out there, only to be reeled back in. Sorry for overstating things a bit..."

AbnRanger
02-01-2008, 11:59 PM
it's 18 pages long..so i don't think so!

if you have what you need then hurray!...we're done!

well i'm off to watch a film...was entertaining decorating the floor!
see you next time for some wallpapering

byeDon't leave yet...we've still got some paint that needs drying...can't leave without watching that episode. :D

dccpro
02-02-2008, 12:10 AM
You know full well the staff at NT DID NOT set out to deceive their customers or make promises they KNEW they couldn't meet...just to sell seats.

Yes i do believe that! but I'm over it!
I am not trying to back down from anything I said, maybe the way I said it, because I was purposely antagonistic, but no more then others...
I stand by every post!

Why are others allowed to use more then one app, but I am not?

You turned on me Ranger... You must care what these people think.:thumbsdow

RedBull
02-02-2008, 12:11 AM
Was the actual degree of change in their paid upgrades more or less than in the free updates that we delivered in the same time frame?

No, you have a fair point, in that the LW9.x cycle has been a value packed upgrade. And fairs well to most, well at least the Autodesk stable in terms of useful additions.


You don't see threads like that on other company forums because most of them yank posts and ban users at any hint of anything outside of polite support questions and techniques discussions. I know of very few with the level of tolerance our forums offer. Tolerance comes at a cost.

I'm not sure of yanking their posts, i have raised some of my concerns in the case of some of your competitors, and some of them are answered and in the case of say Luxology, I've seen posts lately from Allen, Mark Brown, Matthew Craig, BP, and even Stuart, Arnie and Joe...

When was the last time that the LW development took a few moments to answer and share their views with the LW community on any technical issues, future plans or reasons on implementation, delays or anything else for that matter?

As i explained almost all of the others have displayed future technologies, and ideas of what will be included and what won't be, most are communicating with their userbase, better than NT currently is. And that's what i think NT needs to do better, looking at threads like these. I've even had some conversations with Arnie, about things he simply cannot implement until Modo 401, personally it's a great help because i can plan my workflows around such problems in the meantime, rather than hoping in vein for things that aren't doable given the constraints we all know commercial 3D developers are under.

I do agree that Newtek have the best most open forums in terms of tolerance and freedom of speech, and thats why so many people still frequent these forums, despite not much happening in terms of development, or 3rd party tools. I feel like people want to be excited by LW, but the morale of these forums lately appears to match that of the LW9.x demo download, completely absent! But i do look forward to hearing more about LW 9.5 soon.... :)

AbnRanger
02-02-2008, 12:25 AM
Yes i do believe that! but I'm over it!
I am not trying to back down from anything I said, maybe the way I said it, because I was purposely antagonistic, but no more then others...
I stand by every post!

Why are others allowed to use more then one app, but I am not?

You turned on me Ranger... You must care what these people think.:thumbsdowI haven't turned. I agree that NT needs to completely integrate modeler and layout....yesterday. I read the newsletters thoroughly, and didn't come away with the same impression that you have.

You know yourself that often times when assessing how long it will take to complete a given project, it's easy to be overly optimistic...and you realize after you're knee deep in it that you aren't going to be able to get it done as quickly as you anticipated. That's why we oftentimes stress out trying to meet a deadline.
Why aren't you then willing to be a little bit forgiving and graceful when it comes to the poor guys slaving away in NT's development team? Not a pass, just a little grace....a little.

dccpro
02-02-2008, 12:31 AM
I said I was over it.
Honestly the "radical pace" thing is what is bothering me more then anything at this point!
Its all water under the bridge... show me 9.5!

AbnRanger
02-02-2008, 12:40 AM
I will readily admit that LW has come farther since the initial release of 9.0 than Max has with v9 and 2008, feature-wise. The focus (for Max) was one improving performance and they did deliver on that. Can't wait til LW receives a similar boost...especially relating to mesh editing. Autodesk is absolutely mum, regarding the release of information about future plans.

Iain
02-02-2008, 02:28 AM
It's weird that someone can get kicks out of public ridicule which will eventually turn to hatred.
Anything you want to tell us about your childhood?

Come on, this is a professional troll who has admitted he has been previously banned many times.

Ignore.

SaturnX
02-02-2008, 04:28 AM
zbrush...took ages..and i mean YEARS to go from version 2.0 to version 3.0...people were slaggin it off as vaporware and that it'll never come out and when it does it'll be left behind by the other apps jumping on the same bandwagon...and no open beta...you simply had to w.a.i.t
...then people looked over to mudbox, modo and silo and even hexagon saying
z brush is doomed....and look what happened...yup zbrush3 delivered in spades!
it's king of the hill again and actually king of the mountain the others are just living on the 'bumps':D



I could not agree more ! heh :D

Chuck
02-02-2008, 04:30 AM
When was the last time that the LW development took a few moments to answer and share their views with the LW community on any technical issues, future plans or reasons on implementation, delays or anything else for that matter?

What was the timestamp on my last post? :)

cresshead
02-02-2008, 04:58 AM
so would the terms
''what goes around, comes around''
''dont throw stones in glass houses''
''you reap what you sow''

be about right..?

8 out of 10 cats also prefer people to be honest...you seem to have made a start on that so let's see if your new leaf can grow into a pleasant upright, solid good natured oak of a lightwave artist.

Iain
02-02-2008, 07:40 AM
Just search on these forums for Bryan Phillips/Bryphi7 + ebay and the wonders of the internet will work it's magic. What you do on the internet will echo eternal :)




Good on you. Normally this kind of post would seem a little off but here it is totally justified.

On some other vb forums anonymity isn't allowed. At CGArchitect for example, you must provide your full name. If a moderator is suspicious you get cautioned then banned.
I never fully appreciated the reasons behind it until now. Exception hit the nail on the head: cowardice.

Cowards who use anonymity to attack and provoke with no fear of retribution are just maladjusted children at heart.

IMI
02-02-2008, 10:09 AM
Not to change the subject or anything... :D
but as I type this, it's 75% for, to 25% against integrating Layout and Modeler and removing the Hub.
Honestly, I'm tired of Hub. Sometimes it takes forever to send a model to Layout. I've accidentally screwed objects up with Hub. The only thing good about it I can think of is recently I had a crash in Layout after making some surface changes I had liked but hadn't saved the object. With Hub synchronized, I was able to save the model through Modeler, so that was good, but... you know

Nicolas Jordan
02-02-2008, 10:12 AM
I just am having a very hard time seeing how yous plan on pulling this together into a new modern(rebuilt) unified bug free app!


A bug free 3d app? That has never happened that I am aware of and probably never will. There are always a certain amount of bugs in complex programs. I have to say that the development team has done a pretty good job at eliminating bugs that have plagued Lightwave for many years but sometimes even fixing one bug creates yet another so it is a never ending fight especially if development and changes continue. I am glad that the dev team takes the time to weed out these bugs. :)

dccpro
02-02-2008, 10:20 AM
Bryan Phillips aka Bryphi7 aka whatever-else-he-calls-himself, comitted professional suicide by scamming people on eBay and was hence banned from these forums. I've rarely seen a person as mentally disturbed on a forum and I've seen a lot! Trolling forums for years with the same repetitive bile isn't something any remotely sane person would do.

Bryphi, seek help. Everything will be ok, really! You have issues you need to straighten out :)

Admitting to be Bryan Phillips was a ballsy move on your part, given your history of cheating people.

Just search on these forums for Bryan Phillips/Bryphi7 + ebay and the wonders of the internet will work it's magic. What you do on the internet will echo eternal :)

Now, again, what was that about accountability, trust, promises? Bryan can tell you all about those things.

That is bull ****, one dude didnt get his Zbrush fast enough and stopped payment! ALL MONEY WAS REFUNDED!

dccpro
02-02-2008, 10:24 AM
Well, I'm sick of listening to Bryan whine, so I thought I'd use my excellent memory against him, now that he admitted who he is. I'm not normally vengeful, but enough is enough. Particularly when, given his past, he has absolutely no right to berate anyone for anything.

Please find me someone that didn't get what they paid for, or paid for something they didnt get!!! YOU WONT...
you can call me what you want, but not a thief!

I wish i could remember the guy that had the problem, so he can speak for himself!

Iain
02-02-2008, 11:06 AM
Pixelfarmer and Greg Malick.

Oops

Wickster
02-02-2008, 11:18 AM
And back on topic...what would the effect of integrating the two apps together on the all the thousands of free plugins we get from our LW community coders?

If I'm not mistaken, some polugins are strictly for modeler while some are strictly for layout. Integrating the two together would probably break a whole lot of them. Man, I hate to lose all my paid plugins and my PICTRIX plugins.

Imagine the frustrations of many users if every plugins we have breaks because of the integration. Some of the more useful plugins are not being developed anymore I think and if it breaks its gone. PLG tools could be one of them, I use their UV unwrapper quite a lot. How would that work in a Layout environment.

I'm not against integration, it's probably on the things to come in the future I'm just worried about the troubles it may cause during our transition from a separated to a combined LW.

Just a thought.

IMI
02-02-2008, 11:26 AM
I'm not against integration, it's probably on the things to come in the future I'm just worried about the troubles it may cause during our transition from a separated to a combined LW.

Just a thought.


I'm not a programmer, but I'd have to assume that's a good point.
But those of us using 64-bit LW already have that problem now, with a whole lot of plugins. In the case of Modeler plugins, such as the PLG UV plugins, I just use 32-bit Modeler to UV map with those. The models still load fine in 64 bit Layout, of course.
Layout plugins might be a different story... but for all I know, they may be able to integrate the apps in a way that keeps the plugins working.

theo
02-02-2008, 11:27 AM
dccpro-

Your obstreperous perspective of Newtek is missplaced and boorish because the company is NOT intentionally engaging in shady misinformation practices to drive sales, in the past or present.

Newtek previously stated some assertions that ended up having to be revoked for the quite simple reason that they 'misjudged' the future.

Predicting on a continuum is an awkward proposition that can leave one's a** quite exposed to the swift-kickers.

To predict wrongly is not immoral if you are not intentionally planning on profiting off the misinformation.

So: you judge wrongly with far too much invective with far too little rational circumspection.

I do think your disappointment is understandable, though.

cresshead
02-02-2008, 11:43 AM
we either move on and have a modern app or we stay in the early 90's and see lightwave sink to the bottom of the 3d users sea.

it's not as though your previous version will suddenly stop working and your only left with the new version...same thing happened with softimage..they kept shipping softimage 3.* with xsi until xsi could stand on it's own as a full featured app.

not intergrating means you want to see lightwave as a relic 3d app in 2009 used by a few people for nostalgia and not serious users trying to compete with other 3d apps capabilities.

Wickster
02-02-2008, 11:50 AM
Yeah, at some point we have to move on and get with the new. Plugins will break at some point or another. I'm sure if NT was to do something so drastic, the plugin developers will get the first SDK for it and get them up and running with their tools. So when the new integrated comes down on us they will have their version of the plugins ready in a short delay.

But here is another idea to throw in this integration pot.

How about having the two apps share their core more with one another. What I mean is that give Layout a good chunk of Modeler's tools and Modeler a good chunk of Layout's tools.

Layout will have some of the most common tools found only in modeler like drag, polygon/point/edge selection and the tools to modify them...all animatable in layout. Modeler having one viewport act as a camera with ability to render, a timeline, bone interaction, lights and a simple scene editor.

Layout will have no ability to create polygons, ok it can but polygon creation would probably be not animatable. It'll be missing some other Modeler tools like bandsaw or...i can't think of others right now.

Modeler won't be having any dynamics and particles. Something like that.

What I'm trying to get at is Layout being 100% Layout and 50%-75% Modeler. While Modeler Being 100% Modeler and 50%-75% Layout. In a non-generalist studios Animators will be able to model limitedly instead of sending them to a modeler. And modelers will be able to test bones, surfaces, test renders, lighting and basic animations.

That way our usual LW workflow remains the same. except without depending on the HUB anymore.

What do you guys think about that one?

Iain
02-02-2008, 12:42 PM
Didn't Newtek propose to keep a seperate modeler as well as a Layout with modelling functionality?

Mike_RB
02-02-2008, 12:53 PM
I can't take people seriously if they are against a combined app. There are just so many things that are either impossible or extremely difficult to do with modeler and layout separate. How and when Newtek handles it is the question, not if.

We're working on a feature film with a combo pipeline of modo, xsi, and LW, there have been many times that it would have drastically simplified our pipeline if LW had a combined environment to work in.

Michael

IMI
02-02-2008, 12:58 PM
What do you guys think about that one?


I don't know how exactly would be the best way to implement it, or what the general consensus is where it comes to integrating them, but I envision a Layout and Modeler which are more or less still connected by Hub, but internally - where the whole mess loads at once and cooperates as one. With either some sort of switch between the two familiar interfaces, or groups of commands in one interface, but still functioning as one solid app.

Wickster
02-03-2008, 12:49 AM
I can't take people seriously if they are against a combined app. There are just so many things that are either impossible or extremely difficult to do with modeler and layout separate. How and when Newtek handles it is the question, not if.

We're working on a feature film with a combo pipeline of modo, xsi, and LW, there have been many times that it would have drastically simplified our pipeline if LW had a combined environment to work in.

Michael
I'm not proposing they keep it separately, it's a mere idea of what else can be done. So yeah, don't take it seriously. Like I said, I'm not against combining the two apps, I'm not against keeping them separate either. LW is and always will be the tool I use to make personal and professional projects among other apps I use. I'm just throwing the idea out there to get this thread back on track. :D

Anyway, one benefit, if you call it that, I get having a separate app is that there are times when one of the apps crashes I still have one of them open preserving the objects. :)

I do feel that the hub gets a bit of a workout working with big scenes and objects. I'm not sure if there is another way around making it "connect" the two apps realtime with out integrating the two. Having two separate tabs in one app is one way to go and having a unified interface is another.

How about having a switchable workspace? You know...the one the use with Adobe premiere and most of Adobe's apps. In premiere you can switch from focusing ong Editing, Effects, Audio and Color Correction. Then premiere rearranges its toolbars and windows to better suit your needs. And ofcourse everything is customizable and able to save your layout. That could work...a workspace for focusing on Animation, Modeling, Dynamics/Effects, Compositing, Rigging, Surfacing and so on. How bout that?

cresshead
02-03-2008, 03:39 AM
How about having a switchable workspace? You know...the one the use with Adobe premiere and most of Adobe's apps. In premiere you can switch from focusing ong Editing, Effects, Audio and Color Correction. Then premiere rearranges its toolbars and windows to better suit your needs. And ofcourse everything is customizable and able to save your layout. That could work...a workspace for focusing on Animation, Modeling, Dynamics/Effects, Compositing, Rigging, Surfacing and so on. How bout that?

you mean like maya and xsi?
and having tool shelves/floating tools for specific tasks like that of 3dsmax?
also max has save/loadable custom u.i that can focus on specidfic tasks like modeling/dynamics/texturing/rigging etc

it's def a workable idea as the other apps have gone that route already.

Kuzey
02-03-2008, 05:53 AM
I don't think Newtek will do something crazy like combining both apps if it breaks on one platform....not after all the time and effort that went into porting it and keeping it up to date. :hey:

Kuzey

Matt
02-03-2008, 06:02 AM
Hi Wavers,

This is not new but I would like to ask how many of you agree that Newtek should review the Layout/Modeler integration excluding the hub.

Meaning:
To satisfy both worlds (the pro-integration and the against-integration) why not integrate the Modeler and Layout in the same workspace like XSi and Maya?

See the GIF sequence example to understand what I mean, then just use the pool to better understand how many users agree or not with the integration.

Many thanks.

Or like this:

Lightwolf
02-03-2008, 06:09 AM
If I'm not mistaken, some polugins are strictly for modeler while some are strictly for layout. Integrating the two together would probably break a whole lot of them. Man, I hate to lose all my paid plugins and my PICTRIX plugins.
SDK changes, or changes to the internal workings are already breaking a lot of them.

And do be quite honest, I'd rather see ground breaking changes to the SDK that require me to re-code parts of my plugins... than little progress hampered by the current architecture (or the current SDK hampering progress of the core, jsut for compatibility reasons).
Some times you just need to break some eggs.
Having some advance notice would of course help (nobody wants to code for an SDK that'll be obsolete in 6 months).

Cheers,
Mike

Lightwolf
02-03-2008, 06:12 AM
Anyway, one benefit, if you call it that, I get having a separate app is that there are times when one of the apps crashes I still have one of them open preserving the objects. :)
So, you're think two crash prone apps are better than one crash prone app? Why not let the developers focus on one app, and give it some decent autosaving instead. That gives you the safety and allows the dev team to work on one chunk of code :)

Cheers,
Mike

Lightwolf
02-03-2008, 06:13 AM
I don't think Newtek will do something crazy like combining both apps if it breaks on one platform....
It'll be less likely to break... Just look at the hub issues on the Mac.

Cheers,
Mike

Kuzey
02-03-2008, 06:27 AM
I was talking about the same thing I did before, running one app with multiple windows instead of instancing the app :D

Now, if they can work all that out then fine.......maybe I'll start liking the idea :bowdown:

Kuzey

Lightwolf
02-03-2008, 07:05 AM
I was talking about the same thing I did before, running one app with multiple windows instead of instancing the app :D

Erm, you mean multiple projects, right (or, looking at LW currently, multiple scenes)? Multiple windows we already have.

Cheers,
Mike

Kuzey
02-03-2008, 07:26 AM
Yes...the problem of multiple projects in a combined app. Multiple scenes in layout would be cool :hey:

Kuzey

Lightwolf
02-03-2008, 07:29 AM
Yes...the problem of multiple projects in a combined app. Multiple scenes in layout would be cool :hey:

Than again, since this is nothing you have now, it wouldn't be taken away in a unified app.
It'd be nice to have as a bonus though.

Cheers,
Mike

Kuzey
02-03-2008, 07:46 AM
As far as the layout part of a unified app goes...true, it would be a bonus and a great one too. However, multiple projects on the Modeler side is a Must.

Kuzey

Chuck
02-03-2008, 09:18 AM
And you keep comparing LWs upgrades to the others... Its night and day!
These programs have the features already that we are faithfully waiting for NT to add to LW.

The fact that we have ground to make up is not reason to snub the rate of change - it's precisely why the rate of change is important.

cresshead
02-03-2008, 09:29 AM
ideas:-
1.throw some of what polyboost 4.0 has into lightwave for modeling improvements www.polyboost.com

2.get some fur into lightwave 10...bring in/buy a plugin developer if you have too!

3.look at motion builder/max/maya/xsi for improvement to rigging/bones..and take good look at how max can have ANYTHING as bone..so you can build a poly based rig and use the size of thoses poly bones for the initial influence of the bones

4.motion capture...get a simple interface to drag n drop mo caps onto different size characters

5.re write or create from scratch a new motion mixer module.

and BRING everything from modeler into layout that's worth moving everything else leave it in modeler as a legacy tool.

...can we have this ready for download on monday please!:D

Exception
02-03-2008, 09:30 AM
As far as the layout part of a unified app goes...true, it would be a bonus and a great one too. However, multiple projects on the Modeler side is a Must.

What do you mean?
You can have multiple objects open in modeler...

Ňgrťn
02-03-2008, 11:25 AM
I would accept Modeler in Layout if there would be an option to hide all the Layout stuff - so that the interface would contain only modelling tools.

Philbert
02-03-2008, 11:37 AM
I was always all about the separation because it does have it's benefits. However I can see benefits to combining as well. The way I read what NT said, the intention is to move a good number of Modeler's tools over to Layout, but still have Modeler as a separate program. This really sounds like the best idea to me.

One thing someone said above is a good reason, if you have the object open in both programs and one crashes, the object is still saved. I've seen this happen a number of times. Also I really like having LWO and LWS files for the rigging reason someone else said. But also suppose I'm working on a weekly TV show and have many many scenes where my character will be. It's seems pretty simple to just load the character into each scene instead of having to get it out of one scene and into another.

One downside though is the ram usage of having all of those tools loaded when I'm not using them. If I'm stuck on a laptop or low end desktop and rendering a big scene I'm going to want all the ram I can get. Heck even on my high end desktop some scenes I've done recently could've used more RAM.

Lightwolf
02-03-2008, 11:59 AM
What do you mean?
You can have multiple objects open in modeler...
His point was that you should still have this ability in a unified app. And that requires multiple "scenes", since not all objects that are loaded might belong to the current scene.

And yes, I'd like to see a separation of LWS and LWO files remain even in a unified application (heck it took other apps years to get XRefs right...).

Cheers,
Mike

Wickster
02-03-2008, 12:18 PM
And yes, I'd like to see a separation of LWS and LWO files remain even in a unified application (heck it took other apps years to get XRefs right...).
Yup, I'd like to have this separation between LWO and LWS as well. Another idea to do this is by stepping it up a little by having a another extension like say .LWZ of .LWX where LW zips up you whole content directory project into one file. And be able to load that .LWZ file from any LW without having to create directories. Like a LW all in one scene, object, image, etc. container.

IMI
02-03-2008, 01:09 PM
Yup, I'd like to have this separation between LWO and LWS as well. Another idea to do this is by stepping it up a little by having a another extension like say .LWZ of .LWX where LW zips up you whole content directory project into one file. And be able to load that .LWZ file from any LW without having to create directories. Like a LW all in one scene, object, image, etc. container.

Isn't that what the Content manager in Layout does? Sort of. I think there's something broken about it though but can't remember what. Something about the lws file.
But aside from that I think it's an excellent idea. I currently have 40-some Content folders, each complete with the entire range of sub-folders, just to avoid losing anything along the way. Sucks when you open a scene and get greeted with the "can't find blah blah blah..." message.

Philbert
02-03-2008, 01:16 PM
Yup, I'd like to have this separation between LWO and LWS as well. Another idea to do this is by stepping it up a little by having a another extension like say .LWZ of .LWX where LW zips up you whole content directory project into one file. And be able to load that .LWZ file from any LW without having to create directories. Like a LW all in one scene, object, image, etc. container.

That might be handy for backups, but I wouldn't want to use it as my main format. One corrupt file and you lose everything. Each of my Content Directories usually only has 4 folders in it anyway. Images, Objects, Scenes, and Other, which usually is only for saved backdrops and the occasional motion path or something.

The Content Manager basically can take all of your scene files, no matter where they are on the drive and put them in a new content directory. That's good for backups or moving it to another computer.

Wickster
02-03-2008, 01:32 PM
I wouldn't use it as the main workfile either, but in an off site workplace it'll be great for uploading one file to the server instead of having multiple ones. I guess you could call it a newtek version of a zip file that LW can open and unzip the the whole directory with all content and files intact.

Stooch
02-03-2008, 01:36 PM
Or like this:

so whats the deal with your design matt? i really like it, have you heard any word from nt? you already did a lot of the design work for them. did they even acknowledge it?''

why dont we start a poll on your designs being adopted. ill vote yes until my fingers start bleeding.

Stooch
02-03-2008, 01:43 PM
chuck. what are your thoughts on his design? have you considered adopting it? its just brilliant. would love to see his interface in version 10.

IMI
02-03-2008, 01:49 PM
I wouldn't use it as the main workfile either, but in an off site workplace it'll be great for uploading one file to the server instead of having multiple ones. I guess you could call it a newtek version of a zip file that LW can open and unzip the the whole directory with all content and files intact.


Doesn't max have something like that? Sounds like a cool idea.

theo
02-03-2008, 05:12 PM
Chuck, will fusing modeler and layout into a single entity be a probability in a post-LW 10 world?

cresshead
02-03-2008, 05:46 PM
i'm looking forward to 9.4 first...then i may start to think about lw10!

theo
02-03-2008, 06:19 PM
i'm looking forward to 9.4 first...then i may start to think about lw10!

It is a 'special' question. My gut feeling is: integration will happen post-LW 10.

If Chuck would answer 'yes' to my question then, hopefully, the integration inquisition would be put on hold for about 14 months.:thumbsup:

Kuzey
02-04-2008, 02:23 AM
What do you mean?
You can have multiple objects open in modeler...

I was talking about in a unified app as Mike mentioned, not the current version :D

For a minute there I was starting to think I was only making sense to myself :hey:

Kuzey

ben martin
02-04-2008, 10:29 AM
Or like this:
Great on!

See? This is the kind of things NT should care about!
Beside the great looking interface the main ideia is here!

About the plug-ins stop working, sacrifices must be done, rather sonner than latter!
If not we all loose in the long run!
If NT delays much more, then new plugins will come and then and again more problems will come to future integration plans. Besides it'll compromise the development direction!

The only repair I dare to make to NT is that they should considere and listen the userbase much more.
There are great ideias here (NT foruns) and I bet that everyone would be glad to give full premission/rights to NT if they wish to develop such ideas!

prospector
02-04-2008, 01:44 PM
If Chuck would answer 'yes' to my question then,
Isn't that like asking for a roadmap?
NT won't answer that.
They NEVER give roadmaps and probably they won't tell us anything till a release is shipping for fear of this bru-ha-ha happening again where something is taken completely wrong or having to change something.

theo
02-04-2008, 01:54 PM
Isn't that like asking for a roadmap?
NT won't answer that.
They NEVER give roadmaps and probably they won't tell us anything till a release is shipping for fear of this bru-ha-ha happening again where something is taken completely wrong or having to change something.

Well, I suppose it could be asking for a hiking path.

cresshead
02-05-2008, 04:41 PM
not that long back the idea of showing a roadmap of future developments was raised...and in reply many people pointed out that it's JUST NOT DONE...

Hmmm:D
>>

Autodesk Offers 2008 Roadmap Sneak Peek
http://www.vfxworld.com/?atype=articles&id=3532&page=2

http://mag.awn.com/issue12.10/12.10images/auto04_Mudbox-GnomonWip34.jpg

Lightwolf
02-05-2008, 04:48 PM
not that long back the idea of showing a roadmap of future developments was raised...and in reply many people pointed out that it's JUST NOT DONE...

Erm, distill the information from that interview and you end up with less information than Jay Roth has spillt... and it is even more vague.

...emphasis on realtime(d'oh)...stereoscopic...better animation(d'oh)...more simulation(d'oh)...better cross product integration(d'oh)...mudbox(d'oh again).

Not really spilling the beans, are they? ;)

Cheers,
Mike

geo_n
02-14-2008, 03:56 AM
Something to think about with integrating into one program.
Quote from max user.
"When you have a full 3d scene created in max, with characters, cameras, lights the definition of chaos come into my mind. The actual tools to get a tidy workflow are just patches that in most cases slows the work. The way people uses scripts to get a decent layer system should make embarrasing some guys in the development team.

MAX users spent so much time fighting against the workflow than working with it, almost every max user I know have tried another software fleeing from this chaos."

Philbert
02-14-2008, 08:25 AM
I think I only know one Max user, who is at a game studio, I don't think he likes it much but he uses it because that's what the studio uses.

lardbros
02-14-2008, 10:53 AM
Something to think about with integrating into one program.
Quote from max user.
"When you have a full 3d scene created in max, with characters, cameras, lights the definition of chaos come into my mind. The actual tools to get a tidy workflow are just patches that in most cases slows the work. The way people uses scripts to get a decent layer system should make embarrasing some guys in the development team.

MAX users spent so much time fighting against the workflow than working with it, almost every max user I know have tried another software fleeing from this chaos."

Well, i use max full-time at work, and it's true. My bosses love it so much, but then they've never used anything else. They laugh at me whenever i mention lightwave, and i wish it wasn't the case. I mention tools like merge trigons, and f-prime, and they just dismiss it mostly. When tools like these are paid for or not evcen available for max. I find the max working flow to always be stopping me from finishing something. It drives me nuts. Sometimes with our more complex work i can try 3 or 4 different ways of doing things and none of them will work, it's then time to find a hacky work around... and people here complain about LW! :o)

Philbert
02-14-2008, 11:11 AM
I mention tools like merge trigons, and f-prime, and they just dismiss it mostly.

Well to be fair FPrime is also a paid for plugin.

lardbros
02-14-2008, 11:13 AM
I mention tools like merge trigons, and f-prime, and they just dismiss it mostly.

When tools like these are paid for (Max's polyboost tools, equivalent to MergeTrigons and a few others that are free for LW) or not even available (F-prime or something as good) for max.

Just to clarify what i meant!

cresshead
02-14-2008, 11:21 AM
Something to think about with integrating into one program.
Quote from max user.
"When you have a full 3d scene created in max, with characters, cameras, lights the definition of chaos come into my mind. The actual tools to get a tidy workflow are just patches that in most cases slows the work. The way people uses scripts to get a decent layer system should make embarrasing some guys in the development team.

MAX users spent so much time fighting against the workflow than working with it, almost every max user I know have tried another software fleeing from this chaos."

i could not disagree more:hey:
lightwave in modeler is okay but no really great for large amounts of layers with it's general workflow...then take that into layout and it's all gone...no layers...and irritating massive lists of objects...no grouping...no scene states
whist lighwave is okay it's counter intuative for dealing with large scenes with lots of objects and thenwe arrive at bones and rigging...

bringing all of modeler into layout with a LAYERS system intact and finally some sort of proper grouping system is the way forward

really..it is.:thumbsup:

lardbros
02-14-2008, 11:27 AM
Well, i never use groups in max anyway, they are evil, and possibly the spawn of the devil himself!

They are cumbersome to edit and confuse the already confused max, and my name is not max.

Exception
02-14-2008, 11:48 AM
lightwave in modeler is okay but no really great for large amounts of layers with it's general workflow...then take that into layout and it's all gone...no layers...and irritating massive lists of objects...no grouping...no scene states
whist lighwave is okay it's counter intuative for dealing with large scenes with lots of objects and thenwe arrive at bones and rigging...

To each his own but this is highly content dependent...
I work with large Arch vis scenes with thousands of trees, lamp posts, benches, buildings, streets, textures, lights and whatnot on regular basis, and this kind of setup is a nightmare in max.
Grouping using nulls is very useful and powerful.

Lw could be more flexible to allow different work flows, but it's not as black and white as you suggest here.

GraphXs
02-14-2008, 09:54 PM
I work in Max everyday and I organize objects in Max using Layers. They are good to keep things grouped together in folder sets, but donít have a lot of options. The big issue with Layers, is they work different from Maxís objects lister.

In some respect LW isnít much different with the Scene Editor. I can create sets for objects and the advantage there is being able to tweak a lot of settings for objects in one place, I can even parent now.:thumbsup: LW also has the Object List that can create sets, but I prefer the scene editor to the object list sets.

I sure wish I could work in Layout more then in Max. Iím in the same boat as a lot of LW users; Iím the only one who sees LW advantages so itís my secret weapon, but to bad I have to be the only one.:thumbsdow

lardbros
02-15-2008, 01:26 AM
I work in Max everyday and I organize objects in Max using Layers. They are good to keep things grouped together in folder sets, but donít have a lot of options. The big issue with Layers, is they work different from Maxís objects lister.

In some respect LW isnít much different with the Scene Editor. I can create sets for objects and the advantage there is being able to tweak a lot of settings for objects in one place, I can even parent now.:thumbsup: LW also has the Object List that can create sets, but I prefer the scene editor to the object list sets.

I sure wish I could work in Layout more then in Max. Iím in the same boat as a lot of LW users; Iím the only one who sees LW advantages so itís my secret weapon, but to bad I have to be the only one.:thumbsdow

Yeah, i work in layers, it's a nice way of keeping things neat. But why oh why can't they make layers within layers? Annoys me. LW's scene editor is like max's on steroids. The max one is so limited i've just reverted to the old one for now. The old one loads quicker and pretty much works how i want.

Max is also crap in that you can't make a layer hidden for the display but renderable in the scene. Or just wireframe in scene, but renderable. Layout has so much functionality from its scene editor, most people overlook it or dismiss it.

jburford
02-23-2008, 03:16 PM
93.75% are in favor of integration. Dat's screwin' da pooch right der.


Hmnn, a 100 users is Lightwave's base now??? Not..... Too many people are productive and do not have the time for forums or to take time in polls....