PDA

View Full Version : LW8 and Impact lite?



redlum
07-15-2003, 09:30 AM
I think that Lightwave 8 should include a lite version of Impact3 in the same way Sasquach lite was included with Lightwave 7.

Do you agree or disagree?

Mylenium
07-15-2003, 12:02 PM
I disagree. No more crippleware. Give us full dynamics.

Mylenium

Earl
07-15-2003, 12:59 PM
I disagree as well. I'm with Mylenium - either fully integrate a complete solution, or don't bother with it at all.

papou
07-15-2003, 02:12 PM
I disagree too, don't need a lightwave lite.

hairy_llama
07-15-2003, 09:58 PM
I disagree as well. If they include somthing in LW is should be a full version. Nothing makes me more angry (well ok, maybe there are a couple other things :) ) than having a demo in software I paid $1500 for.

jin choung
07-15-2003, 11:02 PM
just so everyone's clear,

I DISAGREE TOO!!!

[email protected]#$ crippled @$$ bull$hit!!!

it's all or nothing baby. none of this "first base" nonsense. it's a homerun or we should all go home.

no teasing. no heavy petting and then saying that 'we should wait'.

don't walk away from me claudine!

nooooooooooooo!

jin

DigiLusionist
07-15-2003, 11:34 PM
Jin, I feel your pain. Although, your pain seems to be a little lower and bluer than mine.

Lite is for syrups and whip creams.

Half-*** implementations would only get NT nowhere fast.

TerryFord
07-16-2003, 06:38 AM
I agree with the disagree-ers :)

Too much of LightWave is already made up of (non intercommunicating) third party tack-ons. It's starting to get messy.


Regards,
Terry

Castius
07-16-2003, 10:25 AM
maybe an alternative could be a third party demo disc be included.

Darth Mole
07-16-2003, 10:32 AM
I have Impact 3 and it's great. I actually think you could implement a Lite version, which allowed you to just do basic physical collisions without the complex constraints - which for most people would do the job.

Or you could save up, go and buy Impact 3 and keep the developer in business...

redlum
07-16-2003, 10:44 AM
Originally posted by Darth Mole
I have Impact 3 and it's great. I actually think you could implement a Lite version, which allowed you to just do basic physical collisions without the complex constraints - which for most people would do the job.

Or you could save up, go and buy Impact 3 and keep the developer in business...

This is what I meant. I have been playing around with Sas-lite but haven't needed to put any hair on things yet. My coworker on the other had (after playing around with sas-lite bought the full version and has used it many times.

The other day he was trying to make a chain and he ran across the problems with LWs lack of solid body dynamics. I found the Impact 3 demo online and that's when I thought it would be good to have a lite version to do basic stuff that can be upgraded to full. The developers of course don't loose either way.

DigiLusionist
07-16-2003, 10:56 AM
The developers may not lose, but the users do not win, either. I think the point is, that nowadays, with the price points of apps being closer, and with the core features of competing apps providing integrated (and usually FULL) implementations of features, makes it dangerous for a company to rely on only HALF implementations.

NT has to change its way of developing LW. The old days of getting by with glomming on a third party plug in as a substitute for an integrated feature are over.

LW has to have a unified code with as full implementation as possible to comparable features, in order to maintain parity with other apps.

jin choung
07-16-2003, 11:17 AM
also,

implementing a 'lite' version enables the developers to say that they HAVE that feature and can list it in a bullet point - but they won't say that it's a 'lite' or crippled version...

but since it's on the list, it gives them ZERO incentive to actually develop a full featured version.

in this way, it is BETTER - FAR BETTER - that it remain a commercial, external app that people have to buy if they want it. this way, lw cannot claim it as being included and they'll have to cop to the fact that they don't have it.

combine that with peer & market pressure means that they might actually have to implement a full, well thought out addition.

jin

Mylenium
07-16-2003, 11:27 AM
I'm totally with you, DigiLusionist. Also just adding Impact! will not improve workflow - it's just another plugin and very noticeable as such. That would be my main concern - a plugin/ extension may be as powerful as it wants to, but if it is not improving workflow it's only half the value you'd expect. The feature argument is also valid - if it weren't for a few enthusiastic programmers that provide us with solutions to LW's shortcomings LW would have fallen behind competitors long ago. These are no longer the good old times where you can impress people with some reflective spheres and even character animation has become mainstream in a way. Now it's time to impress people with the versatility and flexibility of LW (8).

Mylenium

labuzz
07-16-2003, 12:22 PM
Agree completely...Come on Newtek, it's time to wake up!

Matt
07-16-2003, 02:32 PM
Hey guess what . . . I disagree too!!! :)

cgolchert
07-18-2003, 11:51 PM
Larry-Splinegod has post that LW8 will include new and improved dynamics. Whether this means soft, hard, particle or fluid you could ask him.

Elmar Moelzer
07-19-2003, 02:06 AM
Hello
I am pretty sure we wont see any lite- versions in LW8.0 or later.
One reason for this was the AFAIK not so great user- reaction to Sas- lite. In addition to it being pretty limited, people used to think, that some limitations of the full version were limitations of Sas lite, etc.
There have been various rumors about dynamics in LW 8.0 (new integrated dynamics, or the fx- plugins from D- storm, impact light, etc, etc) in the past, but AFAIK none of them have been confirmed by NewTek so far.
Being a 3rd- party- developer myself, I really like the idea of an additional(!) CD with demos/light- versions of commercial plugins (these should not be advertized as additional features though).
CU
Elmar

Earl
07-19-2003, 03:18 AM
Agreed Elmar. 3rd party demo/lite plugins should never be advertised as features.

Stranahan
07-19-2003, 07:02 PM
LightWave 8 will include improved soft body dynamics and rigid body dynamics. They won't be a light version of anything, but will instead be full and expanded versions of Daisuke Ino's plug-ins such as FX Break. A lot more details, soon - but that's not the big news, really.

The big news - or part of it - is that Daisuke Ino is now a full fledged member of the LW Development team. That means that LightWave users will get immediate benefits of robust, working software as well as more innovation and integration down the road.

Here's the thing to realize about including 'Lite versions' - sometimes, it's the ONLY way to get features into the software because the developer won't sell the full version. A limited version of a piece of software is better than not having it, in most cases. I'm glad we have SasLite, because it's a lot better than having NothingLite - and it's powerful. Yes, SasFull does more - but okay, SasLite is still useful - very useful. There may be another solution to this conundrum, but realize that it is a real problem sometimes.

For something like Dynamics though - it makes no sense to include a Lite version. Same with particles, or a number of other things. So, that hasn't happened - LightWave[8] includes the full feature set (and more) of expanded particles, soft bodies, and adds rigid bodies...all from the same author of the current set of tools, and with trunkfuls of upgrades still to come.

Rich
07-19-2003, 10:00 PM
Yikes! Enough with the spoilers! :D I am excited about Siggraph being less than 2 weeks away and then we will probably know everything we need to know about LW8. I can't wait to hear about all of the new features. Bring on the new Lightwave!

Earl
07-19-2003, 10:23 PM
Thanks for the info Stranahan. Innovative developers being brough onto the LW core development team is exactly what we want to hear. :cool:

Side note: I like SasLite too - and I'm glad they included it with LW. I just don't think it should be advertised as a feature. It should be more of a bonus - that is, until a full integrated solution can be added.

Stranahan
07-19-2003, 10:53 PM
Earl,

Thanks for the post.

I totally disagree that SasLite is not a feature. It's very much integrated, and very much a feaure. It works with other tools in LightWave, adds capabilities and is part of the package. It's every bit as much a feature as, let's say, SkyTracer.

I think it's normal, but unfortuate, that some people feel like they were somehow not getting a 'real' thing just because a better version exists that they don't have built in.

But let's take a look at that specific example. Steve Worley had developed Sasquatch for years. He spents lots of time making it, and he's obviously a top 3rd party developer.

So - what should NewTek do? Develop our own hair and fur system? I don't think so. Hair and fur isn't exactly an 'everyday nuts and bolts' feature for most users. And that would effectively get rid of the work Steve did, and we'd (potentially) lose a developer.

Okay - so, let's buy it from Steve. No go. See, he LIKES owning a company. And he's good at it - we couldn't afford the full version. I mean this literally - I have a good idea how much he'd want for it, and I understand why he'd want that much given how much money he could make selling it himself.

So - including a version that useful but a smaller version of the full feature set makes sense. And it still costs NewTek money - it's something they invested in, in order to bring you, the user, cool stuff. It's a feature, and it should be featured. That's just logical.

My point here, really is twofold. First, to let you guys in on some of the complexity that is involved in making deals and developing a product. I'm been involved in the process to some extent for over 10 years now, but I know that when (relatively) new guys like William and Deuce got involved they felt the same way I did a decade ago - wow, it's neat to be on the inside, but what seemed easy out there to do or change is a LOT more difficult.

Second - NewTek is going to feature EVERY feature in LightWave - count on that, and please don't complain. The job is to market LightWave, and NewTek is going to use every tool at it's disposal to do that, period. We are going to tell people about every feature, whether it was bought, written in house, created by a third party, or delivered by the stork. NewTek owes it to you to honestly and agressively market the software as best as we can,.

Sorry for the long post - hope it helps.

cgolchert
07-19-2003, 11:16 PM
Sasquatch isn't a better version of Saslite. Saslite is a crippled version of Sasquatch.


Shipped with is a little more on target than integrated.

jin choung
07-19-2003, 11:17 PM
hey lee,

first off, i'm glad that you guys are paying attention to community feedback and are conversing with us.

again, not something that we're all that used to from the technical staff (though arnie did an admirable job of it when he was here).

also, beware that such indulgence will get old to you guys REALLY QUICK! so instead of doing your best for a few weeks, getting burned out and never doing it again, please ignore all feedback (including this one) as necessary and keep your posts an ongoing tradition.

now,

i disagree with the philosophy of incorporating 'lite' anything (including sasquatch) into lightwave.

as you said, worley developed a third party solution. it should be KEPT as a third party solution.

is it not at all understandable from your point of view that it seems like a slap in the face when a stripped down version (no matter how relatively robust) of a third party plug in is included as a feature and thereby nullifying any possible motivation to develop a full version?

it's a p.r. cheat.

if you don't have a native solution, you can't list it as a bulletpoint feature and so must suffer in comparisons to other apps that do. that puts pressure on you guys to either do a full featured one yourself or simply admit that you don't have it.

essentially, you're claiming more credit than you're due.

the best and most honest solution is SIMPLY DON'T PUT IT IN!!!

it costs you money? great, this is money saved.

like you said, worley has a great solution that costs hundreds of dollars. if users say that they want it, refer them to worley.

it's NOT that complicated.

jin

Stranahan
07-19-2003, 11:24 PM
Good point, Jin! Please remove SasLite from your system right away! It obviously bugs you and must be killed.

Now - that's you, happy. If you want, we won't include smaller feature set versions of anything in your copy of LW8, either....it won't take long to remove the few things that are like that, but you don't want them - so, we want to keep you happy. No extra features for you, if someone else has them.

But please don't assume you're speaking for everyone else in the world. Thousands and thousands of our users are happy with SasLite, and glad we worked to bring it to them....

And you know what? We're going to keep doing it. We will continue to try and make LightWave the best program we possibly can, and we have to live with the fact that we can't please everyone.

(I'm smiling as I write - no hard feelings. Just trying to make a point.)

Stranahan
07-19-2003, 11:52 PM
I wanted to include this quote in the last post, but I wanted to get it right...

This idea that we shouldn't include software because a more feature rich version exists somewhere reminded me of a quote from H.L. Mencken - it's his definition of a 'Puritan'

"A Puritan is a person with the haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy."

SplineGod
07-20-2003, 12:08 AM
There is another issue. Its called critical mass. How low can Newtek take the price of Lightwave AND still add in full versions of everything anyone could possibly want? Hey, Id love to have full versions of every 3rd party plugin AND only pay $1500.00, who wouldnt? The bottom line is that I dont need the full version of Sasquatch and I dont need Impact and a few other things. I do need occassionally to do grass, basic fur and so on. Im glad I have the ability to do at least that without having to invest in a $3000.00 of Lightwave to do it.
The bottom line is that nothing is free. Shall I pay for every feature I want and every feature everyone else wants and do it all up front or maybe I can do the few things I need to do with a lite version of a fur shader and use a few tricks to get dynamics or the appearance thereof BUT be able to pay for the extra goodies over time? Few people, especially in todays economy have the bucks to shell out up front. I personally dont want to pay for features I may only rarely use. I like the option to go full bore when and where I need to.
One of things I found very interesting when traveling around with Lee doing Seminars was how many LW users DONT even use saslite or many other features.
Im more then happy to live with Saslite but have the opportunity to upgrade if need be then never being able to afford the software or not have it at all.

jin choung
07-20-2003, 12:42 AM
hey guys,

the issue is not that saslite is included. my issue is that because it is, newtek can say 'we have fur and hair'! which may be strictly true but not in a way that will be relevant for people looking for fur and hair.

in essence, it's useful for incidental users but is potentially misleading to people really looking for the feature. and in addition, because it can be claimed, the impulse to add a really robust solution is eliminated.

lee, you said that it doesn't make sense to do this with particles but it's exactly what we DID with particles in the 5.6 days. and i guess i'm coming from the pov that any kind of 'lite' solution is the same kind of insult that particles were in 5.6.

does that make sense at all?

i agree with you completely larry. i'm always the guy that chimes in when people ask for 3dpaint and such that you can't possibly ask for every feature under the sun and still expect to pay what you pay!

but whereas it seems that lee is arguing for BREADTH of (relatively shallow [lite]) features that make for a more impressive sales brochure *cough* *bull$hit* *cough*, i'm saying that we have enough issues to address with JUST THE CORE ARCHITECTURE!!! the actual DEPTH!

i'm saying before we assign resources to making lw bigger, let's get what we already have perfect.

there's still fundamental things like the ability to work quickly in layout, consistency in interface between modeler, layout, other windows, etc, edges as selectable/modifiable entities, SDS uv mapping, SDS edge weighting, UI and directinput issues, and just plain bugs that need stamping out.

given the limited resources of a small company like newtek, THAT seems to be the way to go. lean and mean. not huge and spread too thin.

anyhoo, no hard feelings on my part either. i dislike the notions of 'marketing' and 'salesmanship' to a fault and i would most likely be a horrible leader for a company. you're take on things will probably lead to better results.

but just be aware that such things play very badly with me.

and it is why i always like to say - consider or disregard at your discretion.


jin

p.s. yah, the puritan thing as being applied to saslite is a pretty apt take on me. that's why i cannot tolerate packages like maya that have multiple versions and different price points. i'm loathe to own anything other than the flagship.

Stranahan
07-20-2003, 01:48 AM
I'm with you - I hate marketing BS. Good marketing, to me, is the truth told in a compelling way. But it should start with the truth.

I didn't think the PFX Lite thing was good. To stay on topic, as I said - we're not doing that on 8 wth particles, soft bodies, or rigid bodies - they are all in there.

There's a specific example that we are planning to include - but I can't tell you about it, because the contract isn't finalized. I think it's an example that won't bother anyone and really - I wish I could say more.

Beyond that example (which I'll explain ASAP) there aren't any other examples I can think of that are 'Lite' versions. And everyone at NewTek agrees with you, Jin - we don't want the trouble of 'Lite' versions. It's come up a lot, and it's something we are trying to avoid.

But I'm still glad we have SasLite. :)

chikega
07-20-2003, 03:02 PM
Hi Lee,

I saw you in Atlanta during the tour this year - I think you brought up some important issues about MD,PFX, etc... especially pertaining to some unslightly translation from Japanese of some of the button labels. Hopefully, you've expressed your concern about this to the Newtek interpreters and translators. :)


Gary E. Chike
http://www.3ddmd.com

Stranahan
07-20-2003, 03:04 PM
Gary,

You better believe it...

Hervé
07-20-2003, 11:48 PM
Lite versions of anything are just no usable in real life, they are just here to advertise the full versions... and I am pretty sure that's the deal they all have...

I am also pretty sure Worley sold many new Sas-full Licenses after SasLite had been included in LW....

But, these should not be advertised as features because there are simply not !

It should be more like a list of "possible plugins that improve LW" and maybe some demos on a separate CD to install on the side if you want....

BTW that kind of stuff was already discussed a long time ago when they released SasLite in LW...

Stranahan
07-21-2003, 12:00 AM
Many many users use SasLite, in real life. it's perfectly usable.

Hervé
07-21-2003, 12:31 AM
well I feel sorry for them... he he he

Nothing harmful though...

Hervé

SplineGod
07-21-2003, 02:47 AM
I agree about Saslite. Its more then useable and its amazing what can be done with it by combining it with LWs native features. I think the bad thing was calling it "lite" in the first place.

Lightwolf
07-21-2003, 03:20 AM
There is really only one thing that bothered me with SasLite...

I don't care if it has a reduced features / knobs / options set. But it should at least be unlimited in use within that restricted feature set. (Sounds a bit contradictory, I know).

What bothered me is the fact that SasLite has restrictions that the core package (LW) does not have:
* network rendering
* multithreading
* polygon limits

Without those, I'd see SasLite as more than a nag-ware demo... :)

Cheers,
Mike

Exper
07-21-2003, 03:44 AM
Originally posted by Stranahan
LightWave 8 will include improved soft body dynamics and rigid body dynamics. They won't be a light version of anything, but will instead be full and expanded versions of Daisuke Ino's plug-ins such as FX Break. A lot more details, soon - but that's not the big news, really.

The big news - or part of it - is that Daisuke Ino is now a full fledged member of the LW Development team.Really great news! :) :)


Originally posted by Lightwolf
What bothered me is the fact that SasLite has restrictions that the core package (LW) does not have:* network rendering
* multithreading
* polygon limits
* HV and Volumetrics
* Object's Transparency

Bye.

Hervé
07-21-2003, 03:46 AM
.... and no shadow casting....

Lightwolf
07-21-2003, 03:52 AM
Yeah, but the last three are due to the nature of SASLite, the way it renders, and not limitations imposed to differentiate the Lite version.
Cheers,
Mike
P.S. Hervé, that were soem short holidays, I hope you had a good time at the sea!

Exper
07-21-2003, 03:55 AM
Originally posted by Lightwolf
Yeah, but the last three are due to the nature of SASLite, the way it renders, and not limitations imposed to differentiate the Lite version.Sasquatch (complete) works good with
* HV and Volumetrics
* Object's Transparency
and it produce
* Shadow Casting

;)

Bye.

Lightwolf
07-21-2003, 04:13 AM
You're right. But that's Sas 1.5, wasn't the lite version based on 1.0?
Never mind, I guess I got my point across :)
Cheers,
Mike.

Dodgy
07-21-2003, 05:35 AM
I for one, am completely okay with Saslite. You can do lots of things with it if you just use a bit of ingenuity. I am happy to have anything which increases the number of features in LW. Maya has it's own hair solution, but you'll find most users going to Shave because it's better. Does this mean they shouldn't claim it as a hair solution because some people want a better solution?


If you want MORE features you can buy sas full like the guys have been saying. Leave the rest of us to use Saslite as I'm quite happy to have it as is (unless they do decide to add some more features now sas2 is on the horizon!). Now will you please stop going on about it...

I'm really glad to see dynamics in fully too, even though I only bought impact a few months ago! Doh! Oh well, now I'll have a choice of solutions. And I bought it just before fx break came out too! Arrrgh, I have the most amazing timing.

I bet the nforce 3 board will be out soon.....

lasco
07-21-2003, 07:13 AM
I'm not sure I agree with those who disagree (…with the first post).
Won't go on in the discussion to know if a lite plug is a feature or not (personnaly
I guess from the moment you're able to save something you made you can consider them as features, limited and even VERY limited but features…)

For more it's also our business to care about what we buy,
the people who purchase LW thinking he or she's going to produce fantastic
hair effects with it without even checking before what is the tool (SasLite)
is a bit mad…
OK Adobe also sells illustrator as a tool that in part lets you work
on bitmap images, but in reality we know it's ridiculous to believe that,
if you need to work on bmp buy Photoshop ! Let's get serious infos about the softs…

I for example chose LW at a time I was hesitating between it and C4D
and what made my choice were the celshade possibilities.
I knew I was very interested by them and it took weeks for me to check
in the exact details what both LW and C4D would do about it, that's all…

And about SasLite I just know this interested me not for hairs but grass,
well I did'nt buy LW for it but was happy to dicover it after… except that
when I tried it I saw that with my specs and the type of scenes i would work
on I wouldn't be able to render anything with it just because of the time
it takes to render (I insist : i'm talking about very large areas of grass).
So thanx to Newtek, if I had'nt be able to try this little demo maybe
I would have bought the full version of Sas… to dicover this unusability :(

(and don't forget that many plugs are not available as "demo" in the sense
of demo distributed by their editors !-

Hervé
07-21-2003, 10:14 AM
Hey Mike you're right, short holidays, but that was pretty cool, long walks on the beach, love it...

Panikos
07-21-2003, 11:33 AM
I think that a user/studio that wants Sasquatch features can easily afford to purchase a license or multiple licenses.

Newtek cannot and shouldnt compete with Worley Labs.
We are very lucky that Worley develops for LW community.
A serious user is aware what is Sas-Lite and what is Sasquatch.

You have some options at least.

Also you have some extra options with Shave & Haircut.

An average user will never understand / interpret the effort behind developing such tools.

Is better having something "lite" than not having.
If you have the $$$, purchase the full version and thats it !

If "lite" is considered as a teaser, is up to everyone's to decide.

Noclar7
07-21-2003, 11:37 AM
All hail SasLite!!!!

Interesting bit of info for the Sasfull/Saslite people working together.

If you work on a scene with sasfull and pass it on to a user with saslite, they cannot edit the settings but they can render the same output.. Same Engine, different controls... its a feature!
----

Besides, I think one of the great advantages and differences between products like Lightwave and Maya is that fact that you can add the feature sets you "need" when you "need" them and not have to sell your first born child to get everything up front.

Looking forward to LWAte
mmmm.. rigid bodies
RJ,

Earl
07-21-2003, 12:24 PM
Hi Lee,

First... about the long post: don't apologize. It helps make my long and sometimes wordy posts look shorter! :D And as long as the post is broken into paragraphs, it's easy enough to read...

Before saying anything more, I'll reiterate that I do like SasLite - it's pretty easy to use and straight forward. Having it included is fine in my mind. However, I do agree with Jin in the respect that naming it as a feature can be misleading if someone is really looking for a tool that has full featured hair/fur abilities. I also agree with Jin that keeping it as a bullet item on NewTek's feature list can, in a sense, hide the need for a NewTek-style built in solution.

But your point on the resources and 3rd party developers is also noted - and I hold no hard feelings towards NewTek or its decision. As you've pointed out, it's not an easy one, and undoubetly there will be some people who dislike it.

At the moment, hair and fur may not be an 'everyday nuts and bolts' feature - but I'm sure as all things progress, it will be. Just as particles weren't necesary as an integrated feature a few years back, it has become one now. As more and more people use 3D programs for characters, a built-in native and integrated NewTek hair system will become necesary (at least to stay competitive). There's also more selfish reasons I desire a native NewTek solution to hair and fur...

...Simply this: NewTek implements things well. While 3rd party developers try and do a good job, if it was done natively by NewTek it would simply be cooler. The way I selfishly imagine a hair/fur system would be seamless - in the surface editor there'd simply be a tab with controls that fit in with everything else (or something like that).

Well, anyhow. I know there's no easy answer, and I appreciate that NewTek is listening and trying to do what's best. My only hope is that as the industry continually evolves and tools become INTEGRATED STANDARDS rather than packaged plugins, NewTek will also find a way to adapt as well.

jin choung
07-21-2003, 01:46 PM
actually,

the maya vs. shave is good example of one of the things that i notice about a 'lite' solution vs. a 'not as robust but still non lite version'.

the PHILOSOPHY is just different. a lite version's main GOAL is in part or whole to sell the full version and therefore it may throw in arbitrary limitations for the sake of maintaining the value of a full version.

maya's hair may not be as great as shave but they sure as hell don't add a limitation just for the sake of doing so. they will program it as best as they can given the resources that they have and make it as good as they can.

i.e.

philosophy 1: how can we make this as good as possible?

vs.

philosophy 2: how can we cripple this just enough so that they still want non lite version.

that's a huge difference.

and in the long run, a shallow but full implementation will become a hell of a more useful tool than an initially more robust but hobbled 'lite' version.

btw, they SHOULD have labeled saslite saslite. 'lite' belongs there. especially because they impose limitations that are not at all related with difficulty of implementation. if you cripple something, it should be labeled as such.

and as for all this talk about not alienating other plugin developers - errrr, well newtek is about to alienate dynamic realities ain't they?!

that's why for me, it has ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS been about what should be part of the CORE and what should be PERIPHERAL and appropriately sold as an add on. it will clear up any confusion between what will be developed in house and what is the safe haven for third parties.

many may disagree but i have always considered CLOTH, HAIR, DYNAMICS and 3D PAINT (as well as 2d paint!) as the safe domain for 3rd party developers.

and if competition with MAYA's (and other apps) feature sets are gonna drive ours, then we must completely disregard the notion of not pissing off 3rd parties.

as i said, we've already done and we're gonna do it again with DR.

jin

Hervé
07-21-2003, 11:26 PM
Hummmm, many times I've received e-mails from plugin developpers, and they always say, no we cannot do this or control this, etc... because we have no control over LW sdk, what does that mean ??

Hervé

cgolchert
07-22-2003, 12:07 AM
Originally posted by Noclar7
All hail SasLite!!!!
If you work on a scene with sasfull and pass it on to a user with saslite, they cannot edit the settings but they can render the same output.. Same Engine, different controls... its a feature!


Are you REALLY sure about that? Saslite is limited to:

The number of instances applied per object.

The anti-aliasing it will perform.

Here are some others from Worley's site.

* Interactive Color Preview
* Dynamics Engine for swaying fur
* Long hair control and definition
* Full texturing of all attributes
* Texturing by images, noise, effectors, and slope
* Over 30 styling controls (SasLite has just 3)
* Smart contour combing, following object shape.
* Faster rendering, with multithreading.
* Shadow casting onto LightWave geometry
* Independent lighting setup options
* "Salt and Pepper" fiber coloring
* Separate base and tip color definition
* Hair helixing and guide smoothing
* Scaling independence (manual or automatic)
* Multiple bias controllers for manual styling
* "Freeze" mode for fast surface previews
* Wind effects, with gusting
* Compositing mode
* Memory management controls
* Animated fur length and density
* Braiding tool
* Versatile clumping design
* 100 page manual
* Cut and paste of attribute sets
* ScreamerNet rendering
* Surface "creeping"
* Soft surface transitions
* Backlighting options
* Manual fiber quality definition
* Alpha channel selection
* Shadow quality definition
* Landscape distance clipping


Doesn't sound like it is the completly the same engine.

Hervé
07-22-2003, 12:30 AM
he he, maybe we should call it super_extra Zaslicht...

BTW did you checked Patch_it from Hurleyworks..... jeeez, that one is sssoooooooo cooooolll, it could replace about at least 10 LW tools, how come this is not implemented in LW, I mean this one is very incredible....

Check this out....

http://www.hurleyworks.com/

Exper
07-22-2003, 02:45 AM
Originally posted by jin choung
maya's hair may not be as great as shave but they sure as hell don't add a limitation just for the sake of doing so. they will program it as best as they can given the resources that they have and make it as good as they can.
You're quite right... but you have to consider that Alias has many more bucks than NT (as far as I know); so maybe in future NT will implement it's own hair system... maybe...

Saslite actually needs the upgrade to 1.5 Sasquatch's render-engine: integration with HV/Volumetric and Transparent objects evaluation.

Come on NT, contact Worley for an updated/new version of Saslite. ;)

Bye.

mattc
07-22-2003, 05:11 AM
Originally posted by jin choung

...

and as for all this talk about not alienating other plugin developers - errrr, well newtek is about to alienate dynamic realities ain't they?!

...

and if competition with MAYA's (and other apps) feature sets are gonna drive ours, then we must completely disregard the notion of not pissing off 3rd parties.

as i said, we've already done and we're gonna do it again with DR.

jin

Hey Jin,

Oh I don't know. Impact 3 and Napalm 3.47 (?) are quite a bit different to FXBreak/Motiondrive. Napalm in particularly goes far beyond the existing particle system.

All it means is that you might see an Impact 4 and Napalm 4 before too long. So hopefully, all it'll do is drive impact/napalm development that little bit harder.

I think we ought to stay away from competiting on feature sets. I certainly don't want to see DR or Worley or anyone else being pissed off. All those folks have a part to play. I'd just lke to see a better SDK (i.e. better access to LW internals and documentation) and better 3rd party relations. Now, I know that NT is trying to address the latter (I badger Chuck enough about it :) ).

Kind Regards
Matt

Lightwolf
07-22-2003, 05:13 AM
Originally posted by mattc
I'd just lke to see a better SDK (i.e. better access to LW internals and documentation) and better 3rd party relations.
Hear Hear...
Repeat after me: "Bring back Ernie, bring back Ernie, bring back Ernie" :) (and no Ernie-lite please ;) ).
Cheers,
Mike

mattc
07-22-2003, 05:18 AM
Originally posted by Lightwolf
Hear Hear...
Repeat after me: "Bring back Ernie, bring back Ernie, bring back Ernie" :) (and no Ernie-lite please ;) ).
Cheers,
Mike

Mike,

I say it everytime Ernie posts to the LW-P or Lscript mailing lists :)

Regards
Matt

PS: Great work on the ERMapper plugin. Those guys are about a block away from me. ;)

Lightwolf
07-22-2003, 05:35 AM
Since we're completely OT anhow...
I think Ernie's dedication was a great step forward to the whole community, just by looking the bunch of freeware plugins that suddenly crept up out of nowhere.
I remember working my way through the messy 5.6 SDK, and then Ernie's first attempts with the 6.0 documentation. what a relieft, and what a great ressource.
Cheers,
Mike
P.S. Thanks for the kudos. There's more coming (working on a registration scheme now :( )...

hrgiger
07-22-2003, 11:03 AM
Yes, many many many LW users use saslite, but that's only because many many many LW users can't afford or have not yet gotten the full version of Sasquatch.

No more crippleware. And if you are going to include it, don't bother adding it on the feature list. I remember when 7 was being introduced. It said hair rendering, sasqatch render engine included. That was true but very deceiving. I had assumed that Sasquatch was being included with 7, one of the reasons I bought it. It wasn't until later that they started calling it Saslite. And in it's defense, saslite is ok for what you can use it for but it is certainly very limited compared to it's unrestricted big brother.

durden
07-22-2003, 01:43 PM
look at the competition its been almost two years we have had to content with this half *** crap...full dynamics full fur and hair...full particles...no half *** ****...saslite is crap...like holding a carrot over a donkey...I will pay for a pricier version just want the funtionality...lightwave is not the best on mac anymore. It needs to catch up.

Exper
07-23-2003, 03:39 AM
Originally posted by durden
full dynamics full fur and hair...full particles...no halfStranahan has announced:
- Rigid body dynamics
- New soft body dynamics tools
- New particle system tools

There are also other good things:
- Ino is now a fulltime member of the LightWave development team (Rigid body, Soft body and Particle System)
- LightWave 8 IK / Dynamics (look at: http://vbulletin.newtek.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=8365 or directly at http://www.learnlightwave.com/ik_preview.mov)

They've started to work... finally!
I think we'll soon have many many more... and who knows... maybe an internal hair-system in future! ;)

For now... I think Saslite is better than nothing! ;) Expecially if NT will manage a new one which include Sasquatch 1.5 render-engine.

Bye.

mattc
07-23-2003, 05:30 AM
Originally posted by Exper

\They've started to work... finally!
I think we'll soon have many many more... and who knows... maybe an internal hair-system in future! ;)


I doubt they'll want to alienate Steve Worley (or Joe Alter again for that matter). Hair and Fur really is the purview of 3rd party folks.

The other stuff is good news though. ;)

Regards
Matt

Exper
07-23-2003, 06:23 AM
Originally posted by mattc
I doubt they'll want to alienate Steve Worley (or Joe Alter again for that matter). Hair and Fur really is the purview of 3rd party folks.If NT manage in opening LW and the SDK, as much as possible, this shouldn't be a problem!

The real roblem is that 3rd party developer cannot gain access to LW as deep as they can/want; this was one of the main, as far as I know, reasons about Joe Alter departure from LW developing!

Worley has already a great Hair-system and I think he shuold be in a position similar to Maya/Joe comparison: Maya's hair system is a lot worser than Joe's one!

Bye.

mattc
07-23-2003, 06:35 AM
Exper,

A better SDK/API is the one thing I (and others off of the LW-P/Lscript mailing lists) have been jumping up and down about for a long time.

Regards
M.

Lightwolf
07-23-2003, 06:39 AM
*jump* *jump* *jump* :cool:

durden
07-23-2003, 06:48 AM
Look I have no problem with sasquatch it's a great product but it should of been a seperate installer that was considered a product demo or a gift from joe...never integrated because it looks like crippleware...I want to make grass sway in the wind without some complicated bullS*&t. It should be an easy set up and I don't want to hear some crap about pleasing 3rd parties...Newtek has an obligation to it consumers to make its base happy and that means stepping on toes if they can't buy it well they have to do it the old fashion way and build it. If sasquatch is so much better than a newtek version then people will still buy it and everyone will be happy. So you can't have full hard body dynamics because some other company is making it as a 3rd party plug..bulls*&t. Those companies know that they are filling in a gap that Newtek will fill and that's that. Not to mention that only Newtek can integrate features across the board..I also don't want to have to worry about is impact going to integrate with saslite..you say they need sdk sure they need more of it and thank you to all the developers who have brought scripts to lightwave because I could not do my work without it. Also if I owned a company I would never count on a third party and their business plan if you do you would go out of business. I expect Lightwave to do what it can to bring the best features to its user base plain and simple. so I am happy they are finally integrating functions that I think should be standard. cheers
d

mattc
07-23-2003, 07:26 AM
Durden,

I apologize for the long winded reply.... ;)

Newtek has an obligation to increase core functionality to benefit all users, not just those who want hair and fur. I would hazard a guess that soft/hard body dynamics and particles would be in greater demand than any hair/fur solution.

You may wish to dismiss the shoddy treatment of 3rd parties but I certainly don't. In fact, it's a very very dangerous path to take. Steve, for instance, makes totally amazing plugins. G2 is indispensible. I would rather see Newtek expand the API to allow his plugins (and others) to a) have greater access to lw internals and b) allow expanded functionality.

Whether or not impact integrates with SaSlite is more a plugin API issue. Currently plugins do not share information. I.e. the onus is on Newtek to provide a mechanism where this is possible. Then your integration worries are take care of.

As for not depending on a 3rd party, well, that's amusing since Softimage depends on a 3rd party for it's Hair/Fur rendering technology (Joe Alter), Max sources it's dynamics engine from someone else (Reaction) and so forth.

At the end of the day, what do you want, more functionality within the core to allow these kind of things to be integrated properly with all LIghtwave functions or some half assed solution to one small problem or deficiency in Lightwave.

Those clamouring for a rewrite (however tactfully they put it...or not) realize that LW's true deficiencies lay within the plugin API/SDK and underlying architecture of the application and not in specific 3rd party plugins which have been included or not.

In regards to your specific request to have 'grass sway in the wind easily", ok, well now that soft/hard/particle dynamics are being included within the application, Steve has a standard method of applying physics to hsi hair solutions. A new version of SasLite (based on his forthcoming Sas 2.0 engine) could certainly fit the bill here.

Anyway, it's all food for thought and it's all positive constructive discussion that may or may not be read by the powers that be. :)

Regards
Matt

PS: Lightwolf, I'm interviewing Dr Cross for the LWG, so if you want me to ask him anything specific to LW SDk directions, drop me an email.

Lightwolf
07-23-2003, 07:35 AM
Hi mattc et al.,
Just a couple of comments on the SDK and plugins:
I do think that it would make sense for NT to greatly expand the SDK for the upcoming release, even if that would mean a delay to features (that sit on top of the SDK anyhow). NT could then use the point releases to add those features, but third parties and NT would have a more solid base to work upon.
The integration of dynamics for example sounds great. My question form a developers point of view though would be: How can I interact with it? Could I, for example, use the collision detection engine in my own tools (or even from scripts / expressions - imagine a car whell on a bumpy surface, the Y displacement of the axle could be automated with a collision detection to the surface, MAX allows for that) ?
mattc: I'll try to think of something specific and drop you a mail. Thanks!

Cheers,
Mike

Stranahan
07-23-2003, 08:14 AM
One major goal is to greatly expand the SDK for LightWave. The current one has too many roadblocks and there's never been any good reason for that. Expect mnay changes as time goes on. We're not going to delay the release of 8.0 for it, but will expand it as time progresses and new releases come out.

As to the availability of the dynamics information to other sections of the program, that is definately a goal and one of the reasons it's great that Ino-san is on board.

Lightwolf
07-23-2003, 08:18 AM
Hi PartyMeister,
Good Gnus indeed ;)
- on a side note, anybody wanna pay my plane ticket to Siggraph?

... I thought so...

cgolchert
07-23-2003, 10:13 AM
Originally posted by mattc
As for not depending on a 3rd party, well, that's amusing since Softimage depends on a 3rd party for it's Hair/Fur rendering technology (Joe Alter), Max sources it's dynamics engine from someone else (Reaction) and so forth.


Softiamge's hair was licensed from created by Joe for XSI. Not a crippled version but fully integrated FULL version. It would be the same if Worley gave Sas full to newtek and had in integrated fully into the renderer. We still can't get reflections with full Sas.

Reactor was a Discreet product, they used the Havok engine for it though.

Stranahan
07-23-2003, 10:23 AM
And how much does XSI cost again?

I don't think the issue with Sas not doing reflections is so much a matter of not being integrated into the render engine as it is a matter of the method that Mr. Worley uses, which is to do it as a post process.

cgolchert
07-23-2003, 10:34 AM
THis is true but you may notice I never said LW was a pile for crap because fo it. I was responding to someone els's post.

But now that you mention it. Will the price always be brought up. When there are so many options out there that may cost more, why does LW push itself as the Wal-mart of 3d? It isn't even a bang for the buck anymore, it has been
"Sure it isn't the best, but it's cheap". You didn't say that but it is starting to sound like that for a while not. (again not from you...just in general)

Stranahan
07-23-2003, 10:46 AM
You didn't post the price. Do that, and then we can discuss whether price is an issue.

And you implication that we push ourselves as 'the WalMart of 3D' is an insult to our marketing, our ads, and our Emmy.

mattc
07-23-2003, 10:46 AM
Originally posted by cgolchert
Softiamge's hair was licensed from created by Joe for XSI. Not a crippled version but fully integrated FULL version. It would be the same if Worley gave Sas full to newtek and had in integrated fully into the renderer. We still can't get reflections with full Sas.

Reactor was a Discreet product, they used the Havok engine for it though.

Softimage is still dependent on a 3rd party. Whether it's licensed or not.

The business case over why Worley wouldn't do that has been explained elsewhere a number of times.

Still, go look at one of the new previews, G2, integrated right into LW. :)

Regards
Matt

cgolchert
07-23-2003, 11:43 AM
Originally posted by Stranahan
And you implication that we push ourselves as 'the WalMart of 3D' is an insult to our marketing, our ads, and our Emmy.

Only when it is posted as a knee jerk "no YOUR mother" type of response to someone pointing out another apps features. Why not point out the trend setting features instead of just falling back on your usual "How much does XSI cost"?

When I post that it isn't directed at any marketing, just the online panic defense it seems on the forums.

Stranahan
07-23-2003, 11:51 AM
Because, in the specific case you brought up, it seems very appropriate.

So, how much does XSI cost?

hrgiger
07-23-2003, 11:54 AM
Well, it's true. How much does XSI cost? Why do people keep thinking they should get everything that all of the other major 3D packages have but at a fraction of their cost? So really, if you want to use your Wal-Mart example, you buying Lightwave makes you a Wal-Mart Shopper, not Newtek pushing LW as the Wal-Mart of 3D.

Newtek, and I'm speaking of things that Tim Jenison, C.E.O. newtek has said, is all about putting powerful tools into the hands of artists at prices they can afford. That never implies that they would put a clone of XSI in a box and call it Lightwave. People should learn to find happiness in their own yard instead of spending all their time looking over the fence at everyone else's. I find Lightwave an incredible value for the money and I think a lot of other people here do also otherwise, they wouldn't be here.

And the reason that Sasquatch doesn't reflect is not because of how it works with Lightwave, but because it is a pixel filter. Which means it is applied after the Lightwave render so objects in Lightwave aren't seeing the hair to reflect it. Who knows what Sas2 will bring though....

cgolchert
07-23-2003, 12:25 PM
Originally posted by Stranahan
Because, in the specific case you brought up, it seems very appropriate.


Just like every other thread you fall back on that with?



So, how much does XSI cost?

I got a quote for $6499. FOur times as much as LW. So of course XSI has ONLY 4 times the features right?


I'm not saying NewTek is wrong in it's marketing. I just don't think ALWAYS falling back on the 'oh well it doesn't cost as much' isn't the strongest reply. How about some innovation like LW used to do. Remember Metanurbs? You didn't need to make price excuses when you could point to a feature like that.

cgolchert
07-23-2003, 12:30 PM
Originally posted by hrgiger
So really, if you want to use your Wal-Mart example, you buying Lightwave makes you a Wal-Mart Shopper, not Newtek pushing LW as the Wal-Mart of 3D.

Sure if Wal-Mart carried stuff like Armani suits as well as crappy jeans. My point was that all other techniques to push the product fail the price card gets played. If you want to play it don't always play it as the last resort. THAT is why it comes off as the wal-mart thing.

Stranahan
07-23-2003, 12:36 PM
Originally posted by cgolchert
Softiamge's hair was licensed from created by Joe for XSI. Not a crippled version but fully integrated FULL version. It would be the same if Worley gave Sas full to newtek and had in integrated fully into the renderer. We still can't get reflections with full Sas.



Affordability is one of our features, Chris.

Now that you've posted a price, let's put it in context...

LightWave + Sasquatch + G2 + Polk + Taft + RealFlow + XDOF + Hypersmooth + Shadow Designer + Bevel++ would equal about half the price quote you gave.

Let's add network rendering - what does that cost on XSI? Per node....

We're not talking WalMart - $1595 is a lot of money for people. And cost is an issue.

I'm not knee jerk. but I always say that for $7000 XSI BETTER do more than LightWave. That doesn't mean we're not trying to close that gap, but let's not kid ourselves about the pricepoint, either.

Come on - I know you see this stuff, and I know you're on our side. We both want to make LightWave as good as it can be.

cgolchert
07-23-2003, 12:58 PM
Come on - I know you see this stuff, and I know you're on our side. We both want to make LightWave as good as it can be.

Yes, I hope you see what I was trying to point out though. When waiting until the very last thing the price does look like a cop out. Bump it a little higher in the feature set. It doesn't always look the best as the trump card. Modeler being a *** kicking poly push is MUCH better.

hrgiger
07-23-2003, 05:54 PM
I think the point that still stands is this:

Is XSI more well rounded and richer in features? Probably. Is it worth the $5,000 more you have to pay for it? No F*cking way. I'm not sure what their upgrade prices are either but I'm sure they're more then $495.

TyVole
07-23-2003, 07:38 PM
Originally posted by mattc
Softimage is still dependent on a 3rd party. Whether it's licensed or not.


My understanding is that they purchased the code from Joe and integrated it themselves. If this is true, they are not dependent on a third party.

But XSI Advanced as a package should only really be compared with Maya Unlimited.

Also, I don't think being called the "Walmart of 3D" is an insult to Newtek's marketing department. I'm sure they wish they had Walmart's marketing budget.

Hervé
07-23-2003, 11:40 PM
.... for some people, buying a Ferrari is essential in their life goals , for some others, if you buy a car like that, you're sick & insane....

What's the real difference between a cheap toyota and a rolls royce, none in fact, they both bring you were you want to go, different comfort and maybe faster, but at the end does it matter ??? (unless your bott has pointy bones, and unless you're late....)

..... never put yourself in a position like that... simple...

so much to read, so little time....

Lightwave is very good as it is.... (at least for me) a little faster for rendering, but that's it....

Oh, and when people start to talk about next door lawn, it is because they are jealous... no ?

takkun
07-24-2003, 01:12 AM
I got a quote for $6499. FOur times as much as LW. So of course XSI has ONLY 4 times the features right?

cgolchert, you got a quote for the XSI Essentials package, which DOES NOT include Hair or Fur.

To get Hair, Fur, Soft body dynamics and cloth, you would need to get the XSI Advanced package that cost $11,000 +.

SplineGod
07-24-2003, 02:12 AM
The bottom line is that a VERY small fraction of 3D users will ever be able to afford to buy XSI. In the end will it make them 4-10x more talented or marketable?
Look at the shows that won emmys and the FX were done with LW. Its amazing that this ever be done using the "Walmart" of 3D packages. What were they thinking? :rolleyes:

Exper
07-24-2003, 04:22 AM
Originally posted by Stranahan
One major goal is to greatly expand the SDK for LightWave. The current one has too many roadblocks and there's never been any good reason for that. Expect mnay changes as time goes on. We're not going to delay the release of 8.0 for it, but will expand it as time progresses and new releases come out.

As to the availability of the dynamics information to other sections of the program, that is definately a goal and one of the reasons it's great that Ino-san is on board. Come on NT!
Many many great everyday news!

Come on pessimists... can you wait for a while?

Bye.