PDA

View Full Version : if LW 10 is not revolutionary.... if it is merely incremental....



Pages : 1 [2]

geothefaust
09-21-2008, 09:45 PM
C C C P!

(It wont let me make it all caps without spacing... Erm..)

Shuggs
09-22-2008, 01:36 AM
Merging Modeler and Layout will be a huge feature for me. I do not understand why the two are still separate when every other application is set up like that. I would also love to see more animation tools. I would love to be able to Undo more mistakes in Layout. Also, can we update the UI? Make it more appealing, navigable, and something that doesn't suggest that it's dated. Or give us the option to completely re-do/personalize the interface. I would love to have an all black with red and white text interface and put things where I want them with a simple click and drag. No more of that Edit Menu Layout > Search "Whatever" (repeat several times because most of the time you can't find what you're looking for on the first search) > Highlight the Tool > Highlight a Menu Tab > Add > Done. That's too much. I want to be able to just click and drag a tool where I want it and be done.

Also, PLEASE fix the navigation in Layout. I cannot stand it when I need to move the perspective up, but I can't. You only get free movement when you're in a Front, Back, Side, etc. view port. The Perspective view port shouldn't be limited to just the X and Z axis with very little give on the Y axis.

EDIT: ALSO! Can you make Lightwave more compatible with ZBrush? And I would also love to be able to use Mental Ray/V-Ray with Lightwave. Just a thought. Everyone else has that option.

geothefaust
09-22-2008, 02:04 AM
Shuggs, I'm mostly in agreement. Zbrush compatibility is a must. I would definitely also like to be able to click and drag any UI element to any where I choose, including making a viewport just a window full of tools, if I so chose, or a hovering tool panel.

Layout navigation in the perspective viewport is somewhat cumbersome. I'm used to it now, but I much prefer how you navigate in it, in modeler. I would also like to have support for the space mouse, so that I can finally purchase one and be done completely with archaic perspective navigation altogether.

Anyway, rambling here. It's late.

JBT27
09-22-2008, 02:52 AM
Well personally I find such a rush of 'Of course its OK if some things break' very hard to take seriously.

Just look at the rash of complaints when something like fprime does not support every new feature on the day of release. Demands that Newtek buy them up and do the job themselves, loads of messages here saying how unacceptable this is.

Maybe the people who have responded so far are stating their views accurately, but past experience suggests that this is not in any way shape or form typical of the reaction we can expect.

Nick

I think there's alot of truth in this, going by past experiences.

But, many of the free plugins fill gaps in LW which arguably should be plugged in the new app anyway, without trawling through a list of everyones favourites.....but Modeler's layer management, unified translation tools as intelligent as Modo's but which completely work, unlike said 'offspring'. Sure there are alot of nifty plugins that add to LW, but Flay is jammed with links to so many that are patching key gaps in LW. If 10 appears with much of that replaced by core functionality, they won't matter.

The big, paid-for stuff, like Fprime, HDInstance, LW-CAD - there are many who would say their functionality, especially instancing and previewing should be in there anyway. LW-CAD is not so clear, imo - Modo does not have stuff like that, but workflow features like the user-defined work-planes probably should be.

But harking back to Jay's comment about potentially changing the price policy.....add together the cost of Fprime and HDInstance, maybe LW-CAD, and let's say even all of Worley's stuff (though what of SAS now??) for LW.....all that fine functionality keeps LW unified, gives NT and users far more control over the stuff we all need and expect, and seriously raises the price of LW. I don't have a problem with that, personally.....I do have a problem with a 10.x release that changes all, is missing key stuff still, and breaks those plugins that fill those gaps, unless there's a plan underway where all those developers are working in tandem and all will be sweetness and light come the day.....:)

Julian.

Tobian
09-22-2008, 10:36 AM
Also, PLEASE fix the navigation in Layout. I cannot stand it when I need to move the perspective up, but I can't. You only get free movement when you're in a Front, Back, Side, etc. view port. The Perspective view port shouldn't be limited to just the X and Z axis with very little give on the Y axis.


Right click when you are moving, that moves things in the Y axis for both objects and the viewport corner tools. Assuming you have a 2 button mouse :D

jin choung
09-25-2008, 11:33 PM
oh, and .LWS FILE REFERENCING please,

just like how .lwo's are "referenced" into a .lws such that if i later change the .lwo, all .lws's using that .lwo get updated.

i really really need the ability to have a completed little "machine" of a rig, all ready to go in the main .lws and just have animators reference in that .lws so they can work while rigging work can continue and when the rig updates are made, all animator files get updated automatically.

i do this every day in maya (even now that i'm doing a rope effect by myself) and the ability to reference is a real blessing.

this should not in any way be approaching state of the art... this should be a very incremental and soviet feature.

jin

jameswillmott
09-25-2008, 11:38 PM
oh, and .LWS FILE REFERENCING please,

just like how .lwo's are "referenced" into a .lws such that if i later change the .lwo, all .lws's using that .lwo get updated.



I'd kill for this... :)

faulknermano
09-26-2008, 01:54 AM
Right click when you are moving, that moves things in the Y axis for both objects and the viewport corner tools. Assuming you have a 2 button mouse :D

but that's just the problem. you can do a real pan in camera-coordinates, and that's what he (and I) am asking for.

Dodgy
09-26-2008, 02:18 AM
I'd kill for this... :)
You can't really get away from it nowadays. A robust referencing method is absolutely needed for any kind of complex production. They should just make the one file format, do away with lws and lwo and just have one format which can reference another file, ad infinitum.

Taran-Q
10-02-2008, 02:06 AM
If LWCAD Kray and Fprime didn't exist there would be little to no reason to stick with LW .....
I agree totally, speed and polygon count would be our first wish .. followed be more interactivity on modeler tools ...

Nemoid
10-02-2008, 09:15 AM
I don't have a problem with that, personally.....I do have a problem with a 10.x release that changes all, is missing key stuff still, and breaks those plugins that fill those gaps, unless there's a plan underway where all those developers are working in tandem and all will be sweetness and light come the day.....:)

Julian.

in the case of a totally rewritten Lw 10.0 , first off, maybe many current plugins wouldn't be required because of a better thought toolset, and some new - clever - functionality.

a good sdk will do the rest.

And, new compiled plugs could be integrated better because of the new core and so within the app itself. This could bring marvels.

Secondly, Nt could aslo take the route to leave 9.x series in the market for some time, to allow a smoother transition from old to new.

They certainly don't want artists using or going to use Lw in production , to be stopped by the launch of a modern version that could be not exactly heavy production ready since day one.

It happened something similar with Softimage too when XSI wasn't enough mature as an app to be fully adopted from old softimage users. :)

sadkkf
10-02-2008, 09:33 AM
I'm far from a power user, but there are lots of great comments here.

Also, since most of my work is for stills or very short anims like DVD menus and transitions or interfaces, I really, REALLY *REALLY* need better FX:

- fiber
- fluid
- fire!! everyone wants fire!
- cloth
- hard and soft body collisions

My dropping LW as a tool would certainly not affect NT in any significant way, but if 10 doesn't improve these areas I'll probably look towards XSI or MAX. I'm already using the trial of XSI and will buy both as academic versions to test them more completely.

I know the hate fest for Autodesk is raging here, but I love the availability of plugins and tutorials for MAX. Besides, who can beat fumeFX (http://www.afterworks.com/FumeFX.asp?ID=13) for real fire/smoke? Dynamite is nice, but quirky and who knows when or if it will be touched again?

CA isn't something I've been asked about much -- mainly for the cost, I suspect -- but it would be great to add some life to my customers' products.

larkis
10-22-2008, 03:29 AM
You can do that NOW in 9.5 with "Render Q"

The files have to be part of the same content directory. What would be nice is for LW to switch content directories on the fly for the various scenes added. Or at least have the ability to pick project files, group them and then assign a content directory to the group. On episodic tv shows and other projects where there are many shots to be rendered every day belonging to different content directories this type of functionality would save a lot of time. It should also be screamernet aware so it can distribute frames to all the computers on the network.

toby
10-22-2008, 10:03 PM
The files have to be part of the same content directory. What would be nice is for LW to switch content directories on the fly for the various scenes added. Or at least have the ability to pick project files, group them and then assign a content directory to the group. On episodic tv shows and other projects where there are many shots to be rendered every day belonging to different content directories this type of functionality would save a lot of time. It should also be screamernet aware so it can distribute frames to all the computers on the network.
Eh?? RenderQ can only render from one directory?? Is that right?

geothefaust
10-23-2008, 12:10 AM
No that's not right at all. I just did 5 difference scenes from 5 completely different directories and it all rendered just fine. No fuss no muss.

/Debunked!

larkis
10-23-2008, 11:28 AM
No that's not right at all. I just did 5 difference scenes from 5 completely different directories and it all rendered just fine. No fuss no muss.

/Debunked!

Was your master content directory different for each of them ? Because when i try, it asks me to find the missing objects because they are not in the current path.
Is the auto detect button checked on your end ? Mine is not because a few times it auto detected the wrong thing...

geothefaust
10-23-2008, 03:14 PM
Hmm, that's weird. After checking, auto detect was on.

Here is how I have my directory structure.

C:\Projects\A
C:\Projects\B
C:\Projects\C
C:\Projects\D

I loaded up Layout, with a blank scene I open up RenderQ, added each scene to the Q. Then I hit render, and the images were all saved to their respective folders.

What build are you using? If you're using 9.5.1 maybe we should carry this over to the beta forum?

dnch
01-15-2009, 03:47 PM
sorry, so many pages to read, and something bumped in my head so i write it down while i still remember it:).. so sorry of posible "idea repost"
anyway... i still like the modeler/layout separation, its great for my workflow, an i dont have to have milions of buttons (or teapot icons) everywhere to be able to do anything..

.. so .. in case LW X still stays separated to two applications i will really like to be able to transfer camera view from layout to my modeller (as an interactive view with keyframe slider maybe?) .. it would be great for camera projections and 2.5d work

and some good interactive uv editing tools (like true UV relax as in maya) would be sweet


... well lets go reading on:) some great ideas guys.. keep em comming:)

Matt
01-15-2009, 04:27 PM
Regarding backward compatibility, break it all I say, it's the only way long standing issues with the old core are going to be addressed.

hrgiger
01-15-2009, 04:41 PM
Yes please, bust it up with a sledgehammer and don't look back.

geothefaust
01-15-2009, 04:44 PM
Yep... Smash it to bits and rebuilt it. Faster, better, stronger. They have the technology.

JeffrySG
01-15-2009, 05:49 PM
Regarding backward compatibility, break it all I say, it's the only way long standing issues with the old core are going to be addressed.


Yes please, bust it up with a sledgehammer and don't look back.


Yep... Smash it to bits and rebuilt it. Faster, better, stronger. They have the technology.

So what you're all saying is to break the compatibility if needed to make a kick a** v10 product? I just wanted to make sure I understand you. ;)

JeffrySG
01-15-2009, 05:52 PM
I am kind of curious about one thing though. I, and many of us, will submit feature requests to NT. Do you think they (NT) are going through all of the official requests and seeing which ones they will add to v10? or do you think it takes more than a few people wanting something for it to make it into v10? Or do you think that NT pretty much has a plan in place already for what they will be doing?

Mike_RB
01-15-2009, 05:54 PM
So what you're all saying is to break the compatibility if needed to make a kick a** v10 product? I just wanted to make sure I understand you. ;)

We don't WANT backwards compatibility. We want everything fixed to the point that loading motion modifiers as they stand now won't make any sense.

Support:
Loading/converting 9.6 lwo
Loading/converting 9.6 camera positions and lenses
Loading/converting motionfiles and envelopes

Dont support:
.lws

Throw everything else in the garbage.

Nicolas Jordan
01-15-2009, 05:57 PM
I would say NT probably looks at most of them(feature requests) and probably has plans for addressing half of them and the other half are either to outrageous to consider or just can't be implemented any time soon. That's what I figure anyway.

JeffrySG
01-15-2009, 06:13 PM
We don't WANT backwards compatibility. We want everything fixed to the point that loading motion modifiers as they stand now won't make any sense.

I was just being sarcastic.... :devil:

Andrewstopheles
01-15-2009, 07:53 PM
Out with the old, in with the new.
I think NT can release LW10 sooner than most would expect, and it will be shockingly good. Just look at the advances since 9.0. And it's obvious that modeler is getting integrated - they said they would do it, and there has been no measurable change to modeler since 9.0. It is apparent that the changes are being made in the new LW10 core.
Some plugins will be broken but the benefits will far outweigh the drawbacks. LW10 will be a huge leap forward and NT could then have the most modern architecture on the market. Imagine that!
If this happens, and I think it will, they will be able to fill in some of the holes left by the now "assumed dead" XSI.
From a "business case" perspective this is the obvious way to go. And from a developer's perspective now is the best time and opportunity to ditch the old code and release the new stuff they've been cooking up.
If I'm wrong, it'll be the first time ;-)

Carm3D
01-15-2009, 09:22 PM
If Newtek puts HALF the amount of fucus on modeler for LW10 that they did on the renderer for version 9, modeler will be something special indeed.

I agree but I also think it would be a wasted effort. Buy Silo and you're set. Then you'll want to see NewTek focus all of their energies on bolstering the animation tools. The work in 9 got us halfway there. I think they should finish the job in 10.

A Mejias
01-15-2009, 10:00 PM
I remember NT talking about a complete re-write. It was around the time just before LW9 came out.

Err, yeah. GO SOVIET!

I remember NT talking about a complete "from the ground up" re-write. It was around the time just before LW6 came out. They were calling it "the Maya killer." Ah, the good old days. :)

A Mejias
01-15-2009, 10:03 PM
Yup, I say smash it all! And what would really be cool is if LWX came with a copy of each major release since LW5.6. That would cover all the old compatability issues and LWX could start from scratch!

Ågrén
01-16-2009, 12:07 AM
I agree but I also think it would be a wasted effort. Buy Silo and you're set. Then you'll want to see NewTek focus all of their energies on bolstering the animation tools. The work in 9 got us halfway there. I think they should finish the job in 10.

Silo is not suitable for accurate hard surfaces stuff. The price tells about its capabilities. Since 5.6 Modeler has taken in a lot quick broken hacks. I woudn't count it out of the improvement list.

geothefaust
01-16-2009, 12:24 AM
Hey Carm! :)

Don't you want the ability to animation modeling operations? I sure would. But by keeping the application separate like it is now wont do anyone, any good!

I think that NT can focus their energies on not just animation tools and the render engine, but also the modeling toolset. :)

Carm3D
01-16-2009, 01:56 AM
Hey Carm! :)

Hello.


Don't you want the ability to animation modeling operations? I sure would. But by keeping the application separate like it is now wont do anyone, any good!

I think that NT can focus their energies on not just animation tools and the render engine, but also the modeling toolset. :)

I must respectfully disagree. Animation needs so much work.. As does dynamics. Put some point-level editing in Layout so we can make corrective morphs but keep the two apps seperate for now.. It's not time to merge them and deal with the Pandora's box of bugs and problems that will bring about (not to mention all of your 3rd party plugins will likey not work anymore). NewTek is making great strides lately but I don't think they're ready for that yet.

cresshead
01-16-2009, 02:17 AM
newtek simply HAVE to merge or make 1 app, not doing so would be just the thing to nail the thing shut..you simply can't continue to have things that only work within themselves and not talk to one another...so much 'strap on' stuff is just making lightwave look like a blind alley..modeler is a mess really, stuff strewn all over the place like it was developed in a teenagers bedroom, there's some good tools in there but really in 2009 lw needs a big overhaul and with Autodesk taking the hi ground there's good opportunities for people looking for a current day app to fill the shoes of the lower/middle cost 3d app that xsi foundation and the older cheaper xsi essentials.

lightwave has a great renderer..it's saving grace...time for lightwave to play up and start to look more streamlined with a single app where it would rub shoulders in workflows with cinema4d and modo.

your not going to get many new users with an app's coore based around a 1999 core,
they expect lightwave to keep up and finally drop the amiga days of a split app due to memory limits on the amiga and the 2 developers...

i have heard rumors that lightwave 10 is NOT anything huge...just more tacked on stuff and a tweek here n there...that would be really sad to see...and with blender currently being re written coiuyld see lightwave sidelined as 'a renderer' with everything else looking rather old hat.

i'm quite bored by the speculation now...i just want to see where lightwave is heading and if i'm going to buy a ticket for the ride or not

colkai
01-16-2009, 02:23 AM
I have Silo but compared to Modeller+LWCAD it is nowhere near as fluid for me in terms of building hard-body stuff, just want modeller to get the love it deserves.

dballesg
01-16-2009, 02:37 AM
i'm quite bored by the speculation now...i just want to see where lightwave is heading and if i'm going to buy a ticket for the ride or not

Nice post cresshead.

I couldn't resumed better my own feelings about LW.

David

Carm3D
01-16-2009, 02:49 AM
You have to speculate to accumulate.



:D

Nicolas Jordan
01-16-2009, 09:00 AM
I would say the core to modeler needs some fundamental improvements. That's the only way it can move ahead. Some fancy snap options similar to what is seen in CAD programs would be very welcome and the ability to orient the work plane to a selection like modo would also be very nice.

Edges still need some improvement and CC subds need to be finished and polished to work with all the tools. I am hoping there is a reason that there hasn't been much apparent work in these areas since the initial release of 9.0.

Matt
01-16-2009, 09:09 AM
Nice post cresshead.

I couldn't resumed better my own feelings about LW.

David

I concur.

Andyjaggy
01-16-2009, 11:55 AM
Yep. I'm a bit afraid of the future for lightwave if it isn't merged into two apps. I'll still upgrade because I pretty much only use it for personal projects now, but it won't be good otherwise.

jasonwestmas
01-16-2009, 12:44 PM
Yep. I'm a bit afraid of the future for lightwave if it isn't merged into two apps. I'll still upgrade because I pretty much only use it for personal projects now, but it won't be good otherwise.

you mean merged into one app? You wrote "two".:question:

If I can run layout deformations and create Vmaps without the help of modeler I think that's all I really need.

geothefaust
01-16-2009, 12:59 PM
I think LW as a whole has a long way to go. It's made some great steps toward being even better, especially in the rigging and animation department, and the render engine is no slouch. Modeler is in dire need however, of some work.

To beat the dead horse again... Merging would allow much more then we can do now. Proper weight painting while testing deformations. History stack. Animated modeling operations. Camera viewport modeling. So on and so forth.

Blender is a great example, it's ahead of LW in almost all aspects, other then interface and the render engine. The thing is free for crying out loud!

Andyjaggy
01-16-2009, 02:37 PM
you mean merged into one app? You wrote "two".:question:

If I can run layout deformations and create Vmaps without the help of modeler I think that's all I really need.

Yeah that's what I meant. :)

Titus
01-16-2009, 03:00 PM
Blender is a great example, it's ahead of LW in almost all aspects, other then interface and the render engine. The thing is free for crying out loud!

Blender isn't free, it's open source. It was needed a great effort to take Blender to its actual state, in terms of volunteers and money invested. To get the source code from the investors people contributed $100,000 euros initially, adding the same amount just for the two open movies, and who knows how much for mantainig the Blender Foundation. At this point I can't even calculate the cost for thousands of man hours invested voluntarily in this project.

Apples and oranges.

Matt
01-16-2009, 03:33 PM
Blender isn't free, it's open source. It was needed a great effort to take Blender to its actual state, in terms of volunteers and money invested. To get the source code from the investors people contributed $100,000 euros initially, adding the same amount just for the two open movies, and who knows how much for mantainig the Blender Foundation. At this point I can't even calculate the cost for thousands of man hours invested voluntarily in this project.

Apples and oranges.

Whatever it costs to run the business, it's still FREE to us lot!

Sensei
01-16-2009, 04:03 PM
Edges still need some improvement and CC subds need to be finished and polished to work with all the tools. I am hoping there is a reason that there hasn't been much apparent work in these areas since the initial release of 9.0.

Point, Edge, Polygon, Sub-Patch, CC is just data, that tool modifies. All tools must be adopted to support CC or edge. Not reverse. Simply tool that is not checking for f.e. symmetry flag, won't work with symmetry etc. with everything else. It's huuuge task to rewrite every single tool.

Andyjaggy
01-16-2009, 04:39 PM
And yet hardly any task at all to go buy software that does work properly. Hmmmm.

Users don't care about how much work it is to make it work properly, we just want it to work. I couldn't live without your swift loop plugin by the way. I guess the lack of features in modeler works to your benefit doesn't it. :)

Sensei
01-16-2009, 05:48 PM
I couldn't live without your swift loop plugin by the way.

That's great to heard that it's keeping you alife... :) hehehe

I am wondering why are not you upgrading to TrueArt's Modeling Pack. You would love EasySpline too.. It's like Sub-Patches, but source are splines..


I guess the lack of features in modeler works to your benefit doesn't it. :)

Definitely!

NewTek stop upgrading, because I will loose job! ;)

Andyjaggy
01-16-2009, 05:50 PM
Yeah there was a point where i was going to get easy spline, but the need has passed as I am not doing any cars at the moment, when the need arises again I'll probably spring for it.

Titus
01-16-2009, 06:06 PM
Whatever it costs to run the business, it's still FREE to us lot!

Yes, it's free for you. Some of us have contributed something.

drako
01-16-2009, 06:52 PM
Guys i think that all LW users have right.But after all we have to admit that Newtek
is not the huge company as Autodesk with the hundreds programmers-engineers. For long time now Newtek offer us a big software named LW in a low price.This is a very big advantage.
But.....we always have a but...
For me ,the problem always rest,for a long time now.
Modeler and Layout has to be one.The interface needs a new lift.More new,more easy
for users.I work as freelance and sometimes i work with other guys that they used other softwares as Maya or 3D Studio Max and for them the biggest chalenge is to understand why 2 interfaces.I show to them the possibilities they have with LW but they want to work in 1 interface.For them its their logical way to work.They respect the Render Engine
of LW but they cant find stability in animation tools.
I want sometimes to change software here in the company i work but i cant because i m
fanatic with LW.
So i want changes.Changes that we have to see in LW 10.Absolutely...
New One interface,customisable,support for real imports-exports bvh,fbx and not some tricky ways that we always have.(has someone notice the bug with the import of bvh in LW 9.5?).Robust animation tools,good dynamics with real physics,particles that we can really have the absolute control.And not a part of it.
The FFX is very good but lacks a lot sometimes.I heard the news of LW 9.6 and i cant wait.But why we cant have good hair in LW.
When joe altair has started his SHAVE AND HAIRCUT as a plugin for LW why we didnt take this excellent plugin in our LW core and we missed it.Now comes for MAYA.
The same we are going to make to Worley with Sasquatch.
Maybe tricky but stable.FFX is a hit but it wants more.
So now i start the whys.......
Why NEWTEK dont make a good manual for IK Booster or other things so we can learn it more?
Why we lack animation tools such as the tools of Messiah?
Why we lack Managing different motions for crowd animations just like this
http://crowdit.worldofpolygons.com/Examples.html
Why we cant have sculpting or paint in LW as the guys in Luxology do?
Why we cant explode with a button such as C4D an object?
Where are Fluids or Water simulation?
Why this emphasis to Node editor and to FFX while we have problems to other tools?
Why we lack modeler tools?Some more UV tools maybe?
When Retopology comes to LW?
Why we cant even very simple scrubble a video in Image Editor with more accuracy
for giving the in and out?
Why we dont even manage the image inside the image editor such as crop and other
photoshop basic things?
Why these annoyings undo work for some tools and for others no?
Why Graph editor,orscene editor or dopesheet cant be inside the 4 windows such as
the schematic.
I m talking about basic things and imagine that we are in the beta version 9.6.
Why this retard.I was very exciting for the change of the LW site but i want a compilation of the BEST ANIMATIONS MADE WITH LW IN THE CINEMA OR TV OR ARCHITECTURE VIZ.I m talking about a DEMOREEL for the professional world of LW.
I want to see more of the works that ZOIC,EMBASSY,AXIS,DIGITAL DOMAIN etc they do
using our favourite software.
WE NEED A REEL.:lwicon:
WHY AUTODESK,MAXON,BLENDER THEY ALWAYS SHOWS THEIR REEL.
WHERE IS OUR REEL?NOT THE FORUMS REEL I M TALKING ABOUT THE LW REEL.

SORRY FOR BEING A BIT AGRESSIVE.:cursin:I M NOT.....:D
I LOVE LW AND I WANT TO SEE MORE COLLEGES OR SCHOOLS TEACHING IT AND NOT LISTENING SOME ***HOLES SAYING THAT LW IS NOT PROFESSIONAL.
THE ARTISTS MADE THE TOOLS NOT THE TOOLS THE ARTISTS......
SO I HOPE FOR THE NEW ERA OF LW 10 THAT WE ARE GOING TO ENTER,
MORE NEW AND INTELLIGENT TOOLS IN ONE INTERFACE THAT EVERYTHING CAN BE
ANIMATED....:thumbsup:

Matt
01-16-2009, 06:54 PM
Yes, it's free for you. Some of us have contributed something.

I don't use it. If I did and it had a much better interface, I might do too!

Matt
01-16-2009, 06:57 PM
WE NEED A REEL.:lwicon:
WHY AUTODESK,MAXON,BLENDER THEY ALWAYS SHOWS THEIR REEL.
WHERE IS OUR REEL?NOT THE FORUMS REEL I M TALKING ABOUT THE LW REEL.

Sort of a mini-reel:
http://www.newtek.com/lightwave/

I know they have others, because they have shown them at previous SIGGRAPH shows.

drako
01-16-2009, 07:00 PM
matt we are speaking for a reel not a cut version.....:agree:

Titus
01-16-2009, 07:51 PM
I don't use it. If I did and it had a much better interface, I might do too!

My point is, the actual state of Blender and LW is a consequence of the ammount of investment on both programs, in the case of Blender this has been way more than nothing.

cresshead
01-17-2009, 11:00 PM
yeah the dvd's the blender foundation sell help to fund development of the shorts and also the development of blender itself...i bought the big buck bunny dvd as i'd like a physical copy of that project and also though it would be good to push a bit of cash toward them for developing blender esp the rewrite they are currently developing which sounds really intersting and should make blender much more approachable with the new u.i. and stuff like a 3dsmax style modifier stack etc.

back to lightwave and it's development into lightwave 10, if newtek come up short, which i hope they do not...then blender may start to get more lightwavers or potential lightwavers once the u.i. and the new version of blender comes out..so a bit of extra pressure on newtek with blender biting at their heels and cinema4d and modo to either side of them


that should keep newtek's dev team on their toes!

Myagi
01-18-2009, 08:22 AM
I would curl up in fetal position in a corner and cry for weeks if they got rid of the separate modeler :). Having two specialized separate apps, that aren't bloated (memory/feature wise) with clean interfaces is the top reason I love LW to death, and has always bothered me with 3DS, Maya etc. The beauty of working with a single mesh and layers, no other junk in the way, is breath taking. Also Gotta love the way LW starts up in a fraction of a second unlike the other bloat-fests.

To me it doesn't really make sense to make it more and more like the 3DS/Maya faction, then it will stand out less and be in more direct competition, have less features as the other companies have more resources to throw at it. A single app with more functionality will also increase the bug potential.

Another thing I just love is the simplicity/cleaness of the lwo format, and that it's open. It's so easy to write importers for wherever you need (in a matter of minutes), and you can import the real deal, the native data, not some exported meta-data or obj/3ds/etc format which might not be 100%. Unifying everything also risks ending up with a file format like .max /.mb and the likes, closed unusable formats, and another awesome thing that makes LW stand out would be gone.

jasonwestmas
01-18-2009, 09:16 AM
The beauty of working with a single mesh and layers, no other junk in the way, is breath taking. Also Gotta love the way LW starts up in a fraction of a second unlike the other bloat-fests.

To me it doesn't really make sense to make it more and more like the 3DS/Maya faction, then it will stand out less and be in more direct competition, have less features as the other companies have more resources to throw at it. A single app with more functionality will also increase the bug potential.

Another thing I just love is the simplicity/cleaness of the lwo format, and that it's open. It's so easy to write importers for wherever you need (in a matter of minutes), and you can import the real deal, the native data, not some exported meta-data or obj/3ds/etc format which might not be 100%. Unifying everything also risks ending up with a file format like .max /.mb and the likes, closed unusable formats, and another awesome thing that makes LW stand out would be gone.

Unfortunately two separate formats (.lws, .lwo) that are not talking to eachother as much as a CA animator would like is the down side. I wouldn't worry too much though, Modeler isn't going away any time soon if ever. I think NT can still bring modeler functionality into layout in some respects to give CA animation a bigger jump in the game without eliminating the standalone modeler app.

Lightwolf
01-18-2009, 09:30 AM
I would curl up in fetal position in a corner and cry for weeks if they got rid of the separate modeler :). Having two specialized separate apps, that aren't bloated (memory/feature wise) with clean interfaces is the top reason I love LW to death, and has always bothered me with 3DS, Maya etc. The beauty of working with a single mesh and layers, no other junk in the way, is breath taking. Also Gotta love the way LW starts up in a fraction of a second unlike the other bloat-fests.

To me it doesn't really make sense to make it more and more like the 3DS/Maya faction, then it will stand out less and be in more direct competition, have less features as the other companies have more resources to throw at it. A single app with more functionality will also increase the bug potential.

Another thing I just love is the simplicity/cleaness of the lwo format, and that it's open. It's so easy to write importers for wherever you need (in a matter of minutes), and you can import the real deal, the native data, not some exported meta-data or obj/3ds/etc format which might not be 100%. Unifying everything also risks ending up with a file format like .max /.mb and the likes, closed unusable formats, and another awesome thing that makes LW stand out would be gone.
I don't see any of these issues with a decent design to be honest. And I'm sure that the dev team knows our concerns (we've voiced them often enough).

However, there's so many advantages to unification (both for the app as well as the file format) that I don't think it will be kept as we have it now. It just doesn't make sense.

To phrase it differently, only because 3DS/Maya sucks doesn't mean that a unified LW would have to suck as well :D

Cheers,
Mike

cresshead
01-18-2009, 09:34 AM
i think whatever we write in the next couple of weeks will not change the direction of lightwave 10...that's most likley been set in stone for months if not years...just that we havn't heard as yet which way they are going...once 9.6 is out...and that should be really soon then we should expect to hear about lightwave 10 soon after...or if not then we'll hear about it at siggy 2009...which is late august 2009!

personally i'd love to see a unified app where modeling comes into layout finally...maybe keep 'modeler' kicking around if the tools added to layout are not all of them first off in a beta...abit like how xsi kept bundling softimage 3.4 with xsi untill all the functions were there in xsi.

in the end xsi lost it's market share to maya...but lightwave has been losing market share anyhow i think with people moving/adding modo, cinema and xsi since the new team at newtek took over after lightwave 7.5 and they started upon lightwave 8.0 development and now we're at lightwave 9.6

staying with 2 divided apps that at best talk to each other like an estranged couple in a divorce court is not the way forward for a 3d app that needs to develop better workflows and not have "workslows" and hacks/workarounds because of the old tech from the 90's and limited ram of an amiga platform...once again i have to say NEW prospective users would like to see 1 app...lightwave looks decidedly odd thesedays with a split up modeler, hub and layout and feels more like say messiah studio and silo are it's competition than cinema4d,maya, xsi and 3dsmax are...

if newtek DO keep modeler and layout separate in lw10, then modeler needs to be able to do sculpting and painting that are top notch and directly compete with zbrush and mudbox and layout needs to have ALL the tools available for animators to do their work IN layout such as painting weights in layout and have a modifier stack and proper history and undo system...

we'll see...

i think 2009 will be a defining year for lightwave's development..one that makes people nervous...it could be a new begining and some people HATE change..they get used to what they have and don't want new stuff if it mean re learning stuff

could be a great year for lightwave...they have an opportunity to add new users with a new version that would once have gone for xsi foundation or xsi essential pre the price rise/sell off to autodesk..

modo STILL doesn't have a full on app..so lightwave's 'time' is now before modo complete's it's app and becomes a proper competition as a full 3d app also lightwave time is NOW before blender 2.5 comes out...

the clock is ticking!

pming
01-18-2009, 10:29 AM
Hiya.

Total LW newbie here...but not a newbie 3d'er (10 years or so under my belt).



personally i'd love to see a unified app where modeling comes into layout finally...maybe keep 'modeler' kicking around if the tools added to layout are not all of them first off in a beta...abit like how xsi kept bundling softimage 3.4 with xsi untill all the functions were there in xsi.


XSI's interface is perfect, IMHO. Easy to find stuff, and stuff that is "consistent" from one area (modeling, animation, etc) to the other, like transformations (scale, move, rotate) are always in the same spot. This carries over to other functions and once someone uses XSI for a few days everything becomes second nature.



staying with 2 divided apps that at best talk to each other like an estranged couple in a divorce court is not the way forward for a 3d app that needs to develop better workflows and not have "workslows" and hacks/workarounds because of the old tech from the 90's and limited ram of an amiga platform...once again i have to say NEW prospective users would like to see 1 app...lightwave looks decidedly odd thesedays with a split up modeler, hub and layout and feels more like say messiah studio and silo are it's competition than cinema4d,maya, xsi and 3dsmax are...

Honestly? It doesn't bother me that there are two "sides" to LW. What will likely bother me (once I get a chance to really sit down with LW...which I haven't since I bought it a few weeks ago) is the apperent "trash-talk" one side gives the other. In other words, what I'm hearing is that something in modeler will work fine, and when 'transported' to layout, layout decides to ignore it or limit it's function or otherwise screw things up. That sounds like a HUGE headache from a "newbie-trying-to-learn-LW" perspective...


if newtek DO keep modeler and layout separate in lw10, then modeler needs to be able to do sculpting and painting that are top notch and directly compete with zbrush and mudbox and layout needs to have ALL the tools available for animators to do their work IN layout such as painting weights in layout and have a modifier stack and proper history and undo system...

What I'd MUCH rather see is rather than trying to compete directly with zbrush, mudbox, various UV editors, landscape/foliage builders, etc., ...that Newtek focuses on making LW "play nice" with the other apps. I'd LOVE to be able to work on a model in LW, then simply hit "Export as ZBRUSH Tool", and be able to open it in ZBrush completely in tact, with LW layers exported as separate sub-tools, any UV map correctly kept, texture maps likewise transported and 'flipped' to work with ZB, etc. Then, after some sculpting, hit save. Then in LW, open the sculpted model and keep on going.

That would be awesome! IMHO, LW needs to concentrate on working with the strengths of other apps out there and not try and "one-up" the competition; they won't win. Nobody is going to "beat" ZBrush or even Modo. Nobody is going to "beat" Vue for landscape/foliage rendering. etc...etc...etc. Make LW the the app of choice for those that have a preferred modeler/renderer/sculpter/UVer/etc.



the clock is ticking!

Whoeheartedly agree! :agree:

PS to Newtek: Please! For the love of all that is good and holy in the world! Give us a 'universal manipulator' and a numeric input panel that shows changes in real time! Please! Please! Pleeeeaaaassse!!

cresshead
01-18-2009, 11:40 AM
my point is that if modeler stays separate then by that definition it competes with silo, modo, mudbox, zbrush and 3d coat and so should have sculpting and painting...

if modeler is incorporated into layout then layout or better defined as >"Lightwave" then a unified app competes with cinema, modo, xsi, 3dsmax and maya...

i'd sooner have lightwave compete with maya, 3dsmax etc...

bottom line for me is that not getting layout modeling and rigging tools inside layout would currently lead me not to upgrade...and i'll add that 'currently' incase newtek throw a curved ball and do something wacky and amazing but still have 2 apps...

jasonwestmas
01-18-2009, 11:46 AM
Honestly? It doesn't bother me that there are two "sides" to LW. What will likely bother me (once I get a chance to really sit down with LW...which I haven't since I bought it a few weeks ago) is the apperent "trash-talk" one side gives the other. In other words, what I'm hearing is that something in modeler will work fine, and when 'transported' to layout, layout decides to ignore it or limit it's function or otherwise screw things up. That sounds like a HUGE headache from a "newbie-trying-to-learn-LW" perspective...

[/i]

In the lastest versions of lightwave, the Hub, the program that connects the two 3D environments together works as intended IME except for the occasional crash you may get when updating an object in modeler that is in layout as well.

Ernest
01-18-2009, 01:07 PM
I don't see any of these issues with a decent design to be honest. And I'm sure that the dev team knows our concerns (we've voiced them often enough).

However, there's so many advantages to unification (both for the app as well as the file format) that I don't think it will be kept as we have it now. It just doesn't make sense.There were four aspects of the non-unified system that I really liked. One was that each application could run by itself consuming less resources. The other one was that if one of the two crashes, the other one still kept the model and surfacing data. The third was the great dual monitor workflow. The fourth was that each model in the scene has its own layers and I always thought that scenes would also get layers with objects in them.

The first one has really become a non issue. System memory and models have grown so much that the footprint of the application has become almost negligible.Even if the unified app consumed twice the resources of either modeler or Layout, that would still be a very mall percentage of the that would not really reduce the maximum complexity of the model or scene we can make.

The second one became much less important when the autosave feature was added to the hub. Since the models are getting quicksaved every minute, reloading them takes very little time and very few changes are lost. If the scene also got quicksaved to the temp folder, I would not miss the dual-app backup.

The third one is still important but after seeng how single applications can unfold unto dual monitors, like Google's browser, it seems that a single program in separate windows can work just as well as two applications.

The 4th one could still potentially work in a single executable. I have no doubt that NT can make the new version work in a way that is most enjoyable for most people. I'm just scared that most people might not think exactly like me all the time.

As for the file formats. I like having a lwo for the models so that they can be easily libraried and used in different scenes. I just wish the rigs and some model-specific expressions could be part of the model file and not the scene file. The scene file should be just for laying out the objects and animating. Or maybe as a third file format. If the scene does not save rigs then the rig format would probably become really robust.


then a unified app competes with...But, if they stay separate, who does Layout compete with?

cresshead
01-18-2009, 01:18 PM
.

But, if they stay separate, who does Layout compete with?

messiah studio and stand alone renderers like maxwell plus to some degree modo currently.

drako
01-18-2009, 01:40 PM
Guys
Luxology always prepare and update their Big Project called NEXUS that MODO is based in this technology.And when i have seen the architecture in the schematic image they have in their site i was very excited.
http://www.luxology.com/whatismodo/developers.aspx
Lightwave has to be very competitive now ,for playing in this game of Titans.
We do not want a software specialized only in modelling and some animation tools,
but we want 1 software with model,sculpt,paint,animate,and render.
From the other side Blender ,day by day starts to move very seriously.They have a very good market strategy even for an open source software and they always educate their users.They even produce animation films for starting to "fishing" other users.
Maxon stands very well even with 2 app such as Cinema4D and Bodypaint.They promote very well their softwares in the world of cinema and they continue hard to play their game.
We can talk about Hoodini but my opinion is that this app is a highend software for VFX
and their strategy is more playing the game hard against MAYA in Hollywood.
When i have seen this tvc
http://spinquad.com/forums/showthread.php?t=24462
from
http://www.bittanimation.com
i have noticed some changes in the animation world of LW.
I have noticed that now with these changes that we have in the animation tools of LW 9.5 we can stand more serious near to some other applications.But we need more from the DEV-TEAM of NEWTEK.

THE CLOCK IS TICKING FOR LW10....yes


Originally Posted by cresshead
i think 2009 will be a defining year for lightwave's development..one that makes people nervous...it could be a new begining and some people HATE change..they get used to what they have and don't want new stuff if it mean re learning stuff

:agree:I agree cresshead,2009 is :newtek:NEWTEK's time

MrWyatt
01-18-2009, 01:47 PM
There were four aspects of the non-unified system that I really liked. One was that each application could run by itself consuming less resources. The other one was that if one of the two crashes, the other one still kept the model and surfacing data. The third was the great dual monitor workflow. The fourth was that each model in the scene has its own layers and I always thought that scenes would also get layers with objects in them.

The first one has really become a non issue. System memory and models have grown so much that the footprint of the application has become almost negligible.Even if the unified app consumed twice the resources of either modeler or Layout, that would still be a very mall percentage of the that would not really reduce the maximum complexity of the model or scene we can make.

The second one became much less important when the autosave feature was added to the hub. Since the models are getting quicksaved every minute, reloading them takes very little time and very few changes are lost. If the scene also got quicksaved to the temp folder, I would not miss the dual-app backup.

The third one is still important but after seeng how single applications can unfold unto dual monitors, like Google's browser, it seems that a single program in separate windows can work just as well as two applications.

The 4th one could still potentially work in a single executable. I have no doubt that NT can make the new version work in a way that is most enjoyable for most people. I'm just scared that most people might not think exactly like me all the time.

As for the file formats. I like having a lwo for the models so that they can be easily libraried and used in different scenes. I just wish the rigs and some model-specific expressions could be part of the model file and not the scene file. The scene file should be just for laying out the objects and animating. Or maybe as a third file format. If the scene does not save rigs then the rig format would probably become really robust.

But, if they stay separate, who does Layout compete with?

Have you ever tried other 3d software other than Lightwave? because everything you say against a unified file format and app isn't true.

take maya for instance.
lets stick with point 3 and 4 as you stated yourself that 1 and 2 don't really matter nowadays.

so about the dual monitor thingy: I have successfully used maya on a three monitor setup. beat that for starters.

now to point 4.
in maya you have shapes which you could compare with layers if you want. but you have also the possibility to create groups so you have layers for your layers. that is layers on steroids my friend.

now about your concerns with a unified file format where everything is in one scene and cannot be shared in other scenes. well if you don't know how to work in maya this could be an issue, but maya has the ability to reference files. so say you have a character in a scene and you call him Bob ,because obviously Bob is a cool name, then you have your model and your joints and your rig and all the expressions on the rig, ready to animate in a file called Bob.ma (don't like the mb format because it is binary, meaning you cannot read and bugfix a scene in a text editor, with ma meaning ASCI you can) . back on track.
now you have a couple of shots staring Bob in a set with different props. What do you do. Well in Lightwave you would simply import all your props into your Bob file and start to animate, wright. so that is what you would do in maya too, correct?
Wrong. In maya, you get in your Bob.ma and all the other props into an empty scene as references and do your animation there. You can even change shaders and do tweaks on your shading trees on a shot by shot basis and those get saved with the scene you do your changes in. the referenced file however keeps as is. No "save all objects"-crap just because you want to have a different shader for one shot and not for others. In LW I have to save a new version of the object everytime I want to do a shotbased shader tweak, because saving this into the main file would frack up the look in another shot.
But when things like that are saved in the file you are rendering with that is a whole new ballgame. A whole new level of control and flexibility.
So I hope you see that a unified file format has a remarkable list of strengths if done right.

Again, one fileformat does NOT mean that everything has to be in the same file and that you loose flexibility. remember the fileformat MUST be one that is able to load and unload other files of the same format as references. Multiple times even. Hell, I've successfully used references in references in references and every time I changed something in one file it was updated in the scenes that referenced it.

So I too vote for a unified app and file format. Doing it otherwise just to be different would be the dumbest thing to do.

MrWyatt
01-18-2009, 01:57 PM
Maxon stands very well even with 2 app such as Cinema4D and Bodypaint.

Well I think Maxons decision to make Bodypaint a separate app is more because of profit than anything else. It basically does only 3d texture painting, and very well too, so well actually that maya, xsi, 3dmax and lightwave users alike and worldwide buy copies of Bodypaint to use it in their pipeline. If it was just a feature within cinema4d, I bett they wouldn't sell as many copies.
:D

dballesg
01-18-2009, 02:13 PM
Hi,

We tend to forgot NT has LW on three flavours (Win32, Win64, OSX 32) and on a near future OSX 64.

That by itself is a nightmare to program and mantain (put the screams of Chilton, David Vrba, David F. and Jarno here) :) But they do it! :)

And I think that is much more complex than unifying Layout and Modeler. That BTW I am 100% for it! :) One unified app would allow the team to deal only with one implementation of OpenGL, so we will see our object while we are modeling as beautifully as you can see them in Layout. No more Layout supports GLSL and Modeler supports half of it.

And we forgot that having Modeler and Layout on the same environment allows things like have tools that animate the "generation" of geometry much more easily. i.e: fluid simulations for example. Where particles animate the fluid and metaballs generate the geometry of the fluid. Ok before someone of the team jumps the gun, I know it is a simplistic view of a fluid simulator. :)

Now if they add an even more open SDK as well, (and they are being more than good with that on LW 9.x series), imagine the kind of plugins like people like Mike Wolf or Sensei can do! :)

As everyone I am waiting those news. Are we there yet, Mr Roth? :D

David

jin choung
01-18-2009, 02:42 PM
again, for those saying that separate apps makes us leaner and meaner in each:

THIS IS NOT TRUE... NOW!

you'd think you'd be faster than the other guys in the limited scope you're focusing on but whether it's the ability to handle polys or speed of interaction, we are SLOWER THAN THE UNIFIED APPS!

all lw gets to claim now is that it has a faster boot up speed (big whoop!).

and imo, this is what adds insult to injury. all the disadvantages of the split, virtually none of the advantages.

so again, as in my first post, if lw must persist as a split app (which i'm against but have no input on), i hope we start kicking a$s in terms of performance so that we get something for our primitivity.

jin

drako
01-18-2009, 02:47 PM
Originally Posted by MrWyatt
Well I think Maxons decision to make Bodypaint a separate app is more because of profit than anything else. It basically does only 3d texture painting, and very well too, so well actually that maya, xsi, 3dmax and lightwave users alike and worldwide buy copies of Bodypaint to use it in their pipeline. If it was just a feature within cinema4d, I bett they wouldn't sell as many copies.

MrWyatt i know that is a profit to make Bodypaint separate.But why they did that.Because of many users from other applications working in their user friendly interface of Cinema 4D just for painting their objects.Maxons guys understand this very quickly so they have make another app called Bodypaint just for selling more.But they have listen the users demand.They have earned more for the devellopment of their applications just with this movement.:beerchug:
:newtek:Newtek has to make a serious movement to other 3D tools that LW dont have.An approach to 3DCoat maybe......
It sounds crazy but nothing is impossible.:thumbsup:

drako
01-18-2009, 02:49 PM
jin i agree:agree:

Sensei
01-18-2009, 03:37 PM
Fast startup of Layout and Modeler is result of not loading plug-ins to physical memory during startup. While adding plug-in there is written info to LWEXT9.CFG what kind of plug-in types are in which file. And that's it. Until user or something use them, they're not loaded. That's why when you delete file with .p, it's still listed, and warning message appears whether you want to pick up another file.. Going to full LWSDK in C++ (that are not wrappers to C but low-level C++ classes) will probably kill this nice feature- fast startup.. and the more plug-ins and nodes you will have, the slower startup will be..

Generic single unified app that won't use plug-in referencing system like now, will startup in probably 400-500% slower than Layout now..

Ernest
01-18-2009, 03:37 PM
so about the dual monitor thingy: I have successfully used maya on a three monitor setup. beat that for starters.How does that work? Do you mind describing it a bit? Is it several instances opened or parts of the program that get split out? Can they interact with each other?

I have used only one (pretty popular) 3D program other than LW and that program is actually the main reason why I'm afraid of change. In fact, after two months of sleepless training in that other program, I was crying and begging to be sent back to 2D drafting because I would never be able to create anything in 3D. When a LW department was added later, I didn't even want to do the training but I had to try it and we clicked right away and I was popping out furniture from it on the second day. I've tried to give the other program another chance now with years of experience but what scares me is that try as I might, I can't create anything more complex than a stool on that thing. Lightwave does have a "create cool stuff" button for me and it's my recurring nightmare that in some future version it could be taken away.

Your description of the unified file format does sound like the ideal solution. With a scene within a scene a gloomy character could be saved in a scene with an overcast lighting setup and he'd look overcast in any scene he got imported into.

3dworks
01-18-2009, 05:24 PM
Well I think Maxons decision to make Bodypaint a separate app is more because of profit than anything else. It basically does only 3d texture painting, and very well too, so well actually that maya, xsi, 3dmax and lightwave users alike and worldwide buy copies of Bodypaint to use it in their pipeline. If it was just a feature within cinema4d, I bett they wouldn't sell as many copies.
:D

since some time, the basic C4D version is the same bodypaint application.
if you buy bodypaint, you buy C4D base and vice versa.

markus

NTICED
01-18-2009, 06:13 PM
tl;dr the whole thread but...

If Lightwave 10 isn't a Newtek version of XSI, we'll just continue using v9.x and buy XSI. It's about that simple.

robertoortiz
01-18-2009, 06:41 PM
Ok first,
<<These are my own opinions.
they in no way represent the opinions of any of the companies I work for>>


Guys to be fair...
In my humble opinion, we have to be fair to the developers of LW.

So far the expectations being posted on this thread are so out of whack that there is
NO WAY that they can be all addressed. You might as well ask for a renderer that can compete toe to toe with renderman IN ALL ASPECTS.

First please keep in mind that the resources that a small company like NewTek has..
Also lets consider the fact that the 3d Market right now is becoming quite grim. More and more smaller vendors are being eaten up like M&M's by huge conglomerates.
And to be fair, they could care less about the small vendor user base.
Keep in mind of the consequence of MORE smaller vendors going under is that these comapnies can try to control WHO gets into the 3d Market.

And lbefore someone says hogwash, et me remind all of you how vertically integrated the market was in the mid 90's.

And yes there is the open source solution( Blender). And i have posted support threads in the past for them...But what prevents the bigger companies from going after them..

Trust me, they will find away.

In my case I am quite happy with the 9x development cycle and specailly 9.6 has shown me that they ae indeed in the right track.

I will not deny that right now that that the program has HUGE holes (the lack of pass control, and lack of direct support to After Effects) but,

I will cut them some slack.

They delivered what they promised for the 9x cycle...
And 10x sould be a GOOD program.

But there is NO WAY that LW10 will be XSI part II.

-R

Doran
01-18-2009, 07:19 PM
I'm going to buy 10; it's as simple as that.

I really don't see integration as being revolutionary. I prefer the software in the same idiom that I have grown accustom to. Every time Microsoft, for example, release a new os, they feel compelled to change everything... again... renaming important things... combining or moving old features that I've grown accustom to. It takes an inordinate amount of time for me to get back up to speed after that. I prefer an approach that does not throw out the baby with the bath water... Why not just keep things as familiar as we can? Why change things just to make things different… not necessarily better.

If you think integration is such a revolution... why? How would it change the industry for the better? In fact, how would it do anything other than to change the identity of software that I love to work with into something more akin to software that I don't love?

And after the pro-integrationists finally get their way... and irrevocably alter my favorite software, and then find that their "revolution" really didn't do much for them... they will move, easily abandoning Lightwave for what will have become similar software and leave the rest of us folk who would rather have not revolted in a bad place.

Revolutions can be necessary... some can even be important... but sometime revolutions don't do anything but create power vacuums... which finally give us something that was never intended and that most people don't even want.

I urge caution… before making a non-feature seem like a major feature. This kind of thinking is setting yourself and others up for disappointment.

Finally, answering your question, yes, I will be buying 10 - not because the Lightwave modules are integrated - but instead because it does what I need it to do and I like working with it now.

NTICED
01-18-2009, 07:26 PM
The market certainly has changed, and to buy into a new product for a lot of people then it must be fully featured. Lightwave 9 has been great so far but it's still only an improvement upon 6, 7 and 8. You need CA, dynamic, sim and scripting tools that can really get the jobs done quickly and painlessly these days and there is just too much competition out there not to offer those solutions. I do like lightwaves dynamics and effects but only because I hve been using them for years, but they are built on such arcane systems that fresh solutions are needed to be competitive. If lightwave 10 can offer professional studio tools to get the tough jobs done then huzzah, but if it stays at a hobby price and only offers hobby tools (which it doesn't... they are good... but they aren't the best, it's merely a scale on price) then studios that lust after those sort of production tools are just forced to just lump it and go with the competition.

Sensei
01-18-2009, 07:32 PM
If you think integration is such a revolution... why? How would it change the industry for the better? In fact, how would it do anything other than to change the identity of software that I love to work with into something more akin to software that I don't love?


Integration fans (I am not one of them, BTW) want to:
- paint bone's weight map directly in Layout without painting it in Modeler, switching to Layout, checking deformations, if wrong going back to Modeler and painting again, and so on so on, until everything is fine..
- have built-in endomorphs. Instead of making couple endomorphs in Modeler, and then mixing them in Object's Deformation Morph Mixer, they want to slide time to f.e. 10 frame, drag some point(s), transform. Going back to 0 frame it's like currently selecting base morph..

Mike_RB
01-18-2009, 09:40 PM
Integration fans (I am not one of them, BTW) want to:
- paint bone's weight map directly in Layout without painting it in Modeler, switching to Layout, checking deformations, if wrong going back to Modeler and painting again, and so on so on, until everything is fine..
- have built-in endomorphs. Instead of making couple endomorphs in Modeler, and then mixing them in Object's Deformation Morph Mixer, they want to slide time to f.e. 10 frame, drag some point(s), transform. Going back to 0 frame it's like currently selecting base morph..

How about animating modelling operations. Like in houdini where you can attach a curve between dynamically controlled and spawned particles and then use the resulting animated curve to extrude polygons, all live, all history. We need this app intergrated.

Sensei
01-18-2009, 10:30 PM
Integration won't automatically allow generating polygons in fly at any frame, and then deleting them in other frames.. No doubt, it would very complicate whole application.. Every point and polygon would have to have envelope responsible for displaying/hiding them.. That could dramatically increase needed memory..

Mike_RB
01-18-2009, 10:34 PM
Integration won't automatically allow generating polygons in fly at any frame, and then deleting them in other frames.. No doubt, it would very complicate whole application.. Every point and polygon would have to have envelope responsible for displaying/hiding them.. That could dramatically increase needed memory..

Generate them on the fly, don't hide unhide them.

jameswillmott
01-18-2009, 10:40 PM
Generate them on the fly, don't hide unhide them.

What if you want to apply/have dynamics applied to them?

Dexter2999
01-18-2009, 11:01 PM
Dear Santa,

I have been very good this year. I would like:

Lightwave to adopt a full fledged multi pass renderer (sorry Janus/PassPort)
Lightwave to incorperate PYTHON scripting
Lightwave to apply a native GUI to Screamernet
a Bucket Renderer option
and if it isn't too much to ask a 3D Coat LT version like they did with Sas Lite

Please tell Rudolph I said Hi.

robertoortiz
01-18-2009, 11:06 PM
Dear Santa,

I have been very good this year. I would like:

Lightwave to adopt a full fledged multi pass renderer (sorry Janus/PassPort)
Lightwave to incorperate PYTHON scripting
Lightwave to apply a native GUI to Screamernet
a Bucket Renderer option
and if it isn't too much to ask a 3D Coat LT version like they did with Sas Lite

Please tell Rudolph I said Hi.

Amen!

I would add, full support of 3rd party comp apps like After Effects, Nuke etc.

Also I would request direct render support to flash .svg files

Sensei
01-18-2009, 11:11 PM
Generate them on the fly, don't hide unhide them.

Render engine has to know when to generate them and when not in timeline, that's why envelope is needed for all points and polygons in such case..

Currently they're in mode equivalent to 'always generate for all frames'. And you can control when entire object appears (Dissolve), one envelope per object layer. That's just a couple in scene. But if you want generate f.e. 1 mln points in 10 frame, then kill them in 20 frame, then generate another 1 mln points in 30, then kill them in 40 f.e. (even if they're in the same location as first group), then you have to have 2 mln points stored, all with envelopes. Currently point is taking 4*3=12 bytes + optional vertex maps, usually 0. With envelope it could grow to hundered bytes, depending how many keyframes is stored.

When points/polys are enveloped you cannot generate them just like that and then reuse in the next frame. Because this will cause problems with ScreamerNet, which can render any frame, not necessarily in right order. Typical renderer work would be in such case: generate points, polys, add to kd-tree, render frame, kill kd-tree, kill polys, kill points, go to next frame. And same with sliding in Layout timeline (but replace "render frame" by "preparing data to OpenGL and displaying OpenGL").

colkai
01-19-2009, 02:16 AM
i think whatever we write in the next couple of weeks will not change the direction of lightwave 10...that's most likley been set in stone for months if not years...just that we havn't heard as yet which way they are going.

Yup, that's pretty much what I think too, mind you, I am also basing it on the fact that we do pretty much the same ourselves. Simply because all our users are using the software and wanting A, B or C doesn't mean they are told what we are currently doing or where we are going.

You can't do that, it leads to bedlam, cats N dogs living together N everything! :p

You have to trust that Newtek have a plan, just as we do, when the time comes, the users will be told, meantime, one just keeps working away.

Sometimes it's kinda fun seeing folks ask for things knowing full well what they are going to get will blow their socks off, I'm in that zone right now. :)

cresshead
01-19-2009, 02:23 AM
are we there yet?
[i have 2 pairs of socks on btw]

Lightwolf
01-19-2009, 02:56 AM
Going to full LWSDK in C++ (that are not wrappers to C but low-level C++ classes) will probably kill this nice feature- fast startup.. and the more plug-ins and nodes you will have, the slower startup will be..

Maya uses C++ as well and loads plugins on demand.
However, it scans for them automatically at start-up (which takes time) and re-reads and pre-compiles MEL scripts (which is what the GUI is based on, and that takes time as well).

Cheers,
Mike

colkai
01-19-2009, 03:15 AM
are we there yet?
[i have 2 pairs of socks on btw]

S'cold here, but not THAT cold. :p

EDIT: DOH! - just got it, you have to forgive me, I'm gettin' old. :D :D

MrWyatt
01-19-2009, 04:20 AM
What if you want to apply/have dynamics applied to them?

in houdini? mo problem. actually houdini is the only application that deserves the title "app with propper history" as mayas history is quite powerfull but will eventually come to a point quickly where you delete your history anyways becatse going back and change settings without breaking later operations only goes so far in maya. in houdini however you simply never delete your history
:D

Mike_RB
01-19-2009, 09:44 AM
What if you want to apply/have dynamics applied to them?

i'm guessing you don't know houdini. It's a real scene graph, operations 'cook' from one end to the other, every frame. For example.

load an image, say a logo. Do a 2d 'comp' corner pin animation. then put a trace node on it and turn it into a geometry curve (thats still animated based on the corner pin anim). Then extrude that, cap it, and add dynamics.

Now watch it fall to the ground and roll around based on your 2d corner pin animation of an image.

It cooks the stack every frame, new geometry every frame. And it all works.

Having 2 apps only limits your possibilities. If they are integrated poorly it may not widen them much either, but hopefully they are looking to the right software for inspiration.

COBRASoft
01-19-2009, 09:58 AM
I find something funny in this thread. Everybody is talking about all the goodies of other applications that are really needed to be in LW10. But hey, do all those other applications have all these features of the competition? I don't think so.

:newtek: has proven already that they are changing LW drastically the last years and this was done upon old code.

I'm sure instancing and better CA tools will be included in LW 10. For the rest, we have to wait for the big announcement.

cresshead
01-19-2009, 10:51 AM
all the other apps are unified and not split into 2 separate apps...that's my only real thing that bugs me currently..bringing them together is the smart move i'm hoping newtek takes for lightwave 10...they wanted to in lw9 in that they thought of bringing modeling into layout but they said 'not for this cycle'..too big a job so i'm hoping that THIS CYCLE they do get them over into layout finally and so move lightwave forward.

ufo3d
01-19-2009, 12:06 PM
I am using both Lw and modo, but actually I am now much happier with the curent LW team than modo, the so-called old Lw team.

Doctor49152
01-19-2009, 12:35 PM
I have been reading this topic with lots of interest. There are many things I would love to see in the next version of LW. Most importantly would be better OpenGL. I'd love to be able to 'tear' off a window and place it on another monitor. Better UV creation for sure.

But the big one for me would be to re-think the interface. I love LW. have used it since 3.5 on the Toaster. They have come a long way since the Amiga days thats for sure. But I've started writing a few plugins and I must say I am amazed how archaic and old fashioned the panels (both) system is. I'd would like to have new styles of buttons,fields and sliders. I do like how the Xpanels system does so much for you, but not that you have to accept that it does lay the interfaces out on its own. I'd also like to have the panels made off screen before being displayed. True Modal support in modeler would be nice. updating the look of the interface would be nice too. Something 21st century. but thats not the big thing for me.

jin choung
01-19-2009, 05:53 PM
hmmmm, since we're not gonna be getting a 10 teaser report in the immediate future, i thought i'd post about a possible novel way of handling modeling within a unified lw that would give us the advantage of the unified app but still give us the direct, low level access to the mesh that we are familiar with and desire and frankly, gives lw modeler an advantage over others:
-----------------------------------------------------

THE PROBLEM:

y'know what modeler feels like to me? it feels like the mode i would be in when i hit "sub-object" in max or maya. in most apps, there is a hierarchy that you must traverse in order to model - at the top tier is OBJECT. at this level, you are moving around the transform and modifiers/deformers affect the object as a whole. in order to do actual modeling on the verts, edges and polys, you need to select the object and then drop down to a SUBOBJECT level.

this is not a TERRIFIC hardship and there have been plenty of ilm, dd, framestore, mpc, etc movies that we've seen where people worked precisely this way to create remarkable models/images.

but certain operations do become extremely cumbersome like cutting a bunch of polys from one object onto another. in modeler, there is NO NOTION OF OBJECT AT ALL... it's all just layers and so it's easy breezy. maya, not so much.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

THE SOLUTION:

so the most obvious path to integration is to make a modeler LIKE mode when we drop down into SUBOBJECT. as i said, modeler functions like other apps when they are in subobject model mode so it seems like this is the natural way to go.

BUT THE DIFFERENT THING that i am proposing is making "SUBOBJECT MODE" system-wide... that is, make it so that when you switch to subobject, EVERY OBJECT is toggled into subobject mode, maybe dumping everything into scratch space in memory, such that you can perform modeling JUST AS IF IT *WAS* MODELER.

in other apps, generally, you switch objects one at a time or at least by selection and the partition BETWEEN OBJECTS IS ABSOLUTE... you can't just change the membership of these polys from object A to object B easily. i'm proposing that we make lw's method a UNIVERSAL drop into subobject. and every object ends up occupying a temporary scratch "layer" just like in modeler. and this way, you can work just like in modeler, easily and freely copying polys from one object to another no problem.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OF COURSE this should be merely an OPTION, or make the DROP TO SUBOBJECT button have two modes - DROP TO SUBOBJECT SELECTED or DROP TO SUBOBJECT GLOBAL. especially on ridiculously large files, you don't want to HAVE to go subobject on all of them if you don't want to.

but this re-imagining of dropping into subobject would really open up a new, freer way of modeling in a unified app that plagues all other unified apps but lw never had to contend with by virtue of being a split app. having a unified app but eliminating this BARRIER BETWEEN OBJECTS would be huge!

so right now, we suffer the ignominy of suffering the WORST OF ALL WORLDS (split and slower). if we have a smart implementation of this new paradigm, we can have the BEST OF ALL WORLDS and wouldn't THAT be nice for a change?

and indeed, what i am proposing is DIFFERENT than how other apps do it - from maya to xsi to blender to houdini (probably). and as always, i ABHOR difference for difference sake. but in this case, i do feel that the difference is incurred for the sake of BETTERING convention - which is the only justification i always argue.

jin

p.s. but the dropping all or even selected object into a shared "scratch space", that's probably gonna take some doing! especially if you have to "re-separate" when you jump out to OBJECT level... BUT, if we use the "temp layers that correspond to object" as i propose, it should be do-able.

p.s.2. this is for consideration of the devs for some future point in time. as i have stated from the first post in this thread, i don't have a big faith this 10 will be unified. but the thing is now, i can see a lw that is unified, would appeal to me as a modeler and would be unique and have a character its own.

Mike_RB
01-19-2009, 05:59 PM
BUT THE DIFFERENT THING that i am proposing is making "SUBOBJECT MODE" system-wide...

It would have been easier to just say: "Make it like modo."

-Michael

jin choung
01-19-2009, 06:18 PM
It would have been easier to just say: "Make it like modo."

-Michael

is that what modo does? extend subobject mode to all objects?! and so you can cut a poly from object a and paste to object b no problem?

sweet!

well if there's a model to strive toward, even better.

jin

jin choung
01-19-2009, 06:22 PM
actually, is there a demo vid or doc that demonstrates this kind of workflow?

cuz having worked only with maya, max and blender, i'm used to there being a pretty substantial barrier BETWEEN OBJECTS and i'd love to see modo overcoming this in action.

jin

jin choung
01-19-2009, 06:30 PM
hmmmm, according to this one account: http://forums.cgsociety.org/archive/index.php/t-172815.html , it looks like modo doesn't have proper object entities, like lw modeler in fact... which would be different than what i was talking about.... just first thing i ran into, still researching... tbc.

jin

jin choung
01-19-2009, 06:56 PM
http://www.luxology.com/community/user_tutorials/modeling/camera/

looking at part 3 vid 2, it looks like there is no real notion of "OBJECT" in modo either. it's not really that a combined lw should be like modo - more like modo is very similar to what modeler is now.

in the little hierarchy view to the right, it looks like "xxxx.lwo" would be a lw like object in modeler (which you can just jump from one to another in modeler) and the "main" and "viewfinders" are just layers. so for instance, when you create INSTANCES in modo, can you do it to the "subobjects" or is it restricted to the "xxxx.lwo"?

also, "subobject" as it is used in modo is NOT what i mean. for them it seems to simply be a hierarchical layer. when i refer to "subobject" i'm talking about the entities that comprise the OBJECT - again, in maya, xsi, etc, these are polys, verts, edges, etc.

not like in maya or xsi where they are "object entities" and have a transform node and can be manipulated as objects for animation. even lw calls the layers "objects" and map them into separate objects in layout... but inside of modeler, they are just layers.

i think what i'm proposing is indeed different. imagine modeler or modo like mesh manipulation in xsi across all xsi objects and that would be approximate it. also, the fact that modo doesn't have a full animation capability yet informs what it currently is now... what looks to be a superamped modeler (no slight intended, i know there's .mdd and timeline and rendering and all that... but i'm talking about the foundation which does seem modeler-like).

downloading demo now. will return with fuller eval.

jin

jin choung
01-19-2009, 09:50 PM
oh cool! modo is "ITEM"... it DOES have "object entities" with their own transforms.

sweeeeeeet! yeah, LIKE MODO then!

: )

jin

toby
01-19-2009, 10:51 PM
Having 2 apps only limits your possibilities. If they are integrated poorly it may not widen them much either, but hopefully they are looking to the right software for inspiration.
Funny you should bring up Houdini, since no one models or does character animation it, yet LW is expected to be top-notch at *all* of these things. For 800 bucks.

Besides, merging the apps wouldn't give us anything that even compares to Houdini, unless they gave us no upgrades for 5 years and just focused on that.

It won't give us animatable modeling for free either, that will have to be added and debugged, and it would be a while before everything worked with keyframes. We don't even have everything working with cc's yet!! You guys are setting yourselves up for disappointment by expecting 4 killer apps from a company that's much smaller than Autodesk.

jin choung
01-19-2009, 10:57 PM
Funny you should bring up Houdini, since no one models or does character animation it, yet LW is expected to be top-notch at *all* of these things. For 800 bucks.

Besides, merging the apps wouldn't give us anything that even compares to Houdini, unless they gave us no upgrades for 5 years and just focused on that.

It won't give us animatable modeling for free either, that will have to be added and debugged, and it would be a while before everything worked with keyframes. We don't even have everything working with cc's yet!!

that's a disingenuous argument dontcha think? you're point is simply that you prefer a split app. you don't really care about the discrepancy in price do you and fairness to newtek do you?

i mean, you're not going to give lw a pass on CCs because you're ONLY paying $800 right?

the issue is whether it does what you (me, he, she) wants it to do.

anyway, it doesn't really matter what YOU think.

and it doesn't matter what i think or we think or the world thinks.

if it's going to happen, it's going to happen despite your objections.

if it's not going to happen (which i personally am betting on... alas), it's not going to happen no matter how much we cheer for it.

jin

Sensei
01-19-2009, 10:57 PM
Toby.. Size does not matter, does it? ;)

Darth Mole
01-20-2009, 01:08 AM
I'm a bit late to this discussion, but for me a v10 has to have a complete rethink and rationalisation of Modeler's toolset. Simply put, there's so much in it, I often can't find the right tools for the job. I know they're in there - somewhere - but where? In the Additionals plug-ins somewhere? And which one do I use?

I really like Modo's attempt to plug a help system right into the interface, but it's still piecemeal and not always very helpful. I suggest having a help system (text + video clips) that describes the function of each tool, how you use it, what the results are, when you might use it and when you might be better off with another tool.

If this was searchable and split into clear categories (basic mesh editing, adding geometry, removing geometry, bevelling, Boolans etc etc) I think it would be the best help system on any app, and invaluable in making sure LWers were able to get the maximum from their investment.

After all, I think I'm probably using somewhere in the region of 5% of LW's power at the moment; not 'cos I'm stupid but I simply don't know the best tools to use - so I do it by raw grunt - by hand, point-by-point if necessary.

A tidied-up interface, rationalised toolset (get rid of some legacy tools) and an embedded help system- that would be just fine me. LW10: work smarter, not harder.

toby
01-20-2009, 01:11 AM
that's a disingenuous argument dontcha think? you're point is simply that you prefer a split app. you don't really care about the discrepancy in price do you and fairness to newtek do you?

i mean, you're not going to give lw a pass on CCs because you're ONLY paying $800 right?

the issue is whether it does what you (me, he, she) wants it to do.

anyway, it doesn't really matter what YOU think.

and it doesn't matter what i think or we think or the world thinks.

if it's going to happen, it's going to happen despite your objections.

if it's not going to happen (which i personally am betting on... alas), it's not going to happen no matter how much we cheer for it.

jin
Don't assume that I don't care about these things just because you think I want a split app. I work in 3-4 copies of maya every day and I never say "damn I wish these modeling tools weren't here". I do care about the discrepency in price. If LW cost as much as Houdini, I would never own it, or I'd never upgrade if I had somehow gotten it. And it's not about fairness to NT as my "You guys are setting yourselves up for disappointment by expecting 4 killer apps (in one)" should've made clear. Even Autodesk doesn't do that. I do care about NT spending years just trying to get a re-written app up to snuff, just to add a few features it's been competitive without for years, and only needs if it wants to be all-things-to-all-people.

So - can I assume you don't find it ironic to bring something like Houdini to the pro-merge argument side? Make sense of that for me please.

I was neutral until the pro-merge team got holier-than-thou and righteous (not in this thread btw), claiming, after a dozen benefits were given, that there was NO benefit to separate apps . For god's sake, if split apps was so bad and merged apps so good, then why aren't you using a merged app??? That makes a lot more sense than trying to get: houdini-class dynamics, maya-class animation, modo and zbrush-class modeling, fast opengl, and a merged app all at the same time, when they charge 800 bucks. If NT could do all that, they would've done it already, don't you think?

jin choung
01-20-2009, 01:54 AM
Don't assume that I don't care about these things just because you think I want a split app. I work in 3-4 copies of maya every day and I never say "damn I wish these modeling tools weren't here". I do care about the discrepency in price. If LW cost as much as Houdini, I would never own it, or I'd never upgrade if I had somehow gotten it. And it's not about fairness to NT as my "You guys are setting yourselves up for disappointment by expecting 4 killer apps (in one)" should've made clear. Even Autodesk doesn't do that. I do care about NT spending years just trying to get a re-written app up to snuff, just to add a few features it's been competitive without for years, and only needs if it wants to be all-things-to-all-people.

So - can I assume you don't find it ironic to bring something like Houdini to the pro-merge argument side? Make sense of that for me please.

I was neutral until the pro-merge team got holier-than-thou and righteous (not in this thread btw), claiming, after a dozen benefits were given, that there was NO benefit to separate apps . For god's sake, if split apps was so bad and merged apps so good, then why aren't you using a merged app??? That makes a lot more sense than trying to get: houdini-class dynamics, maya-class animation, modo and zbrush-class modeling, fast opengl, and a merged app all at the same time, when they charge 800 bucks. If NT could do all that, they would've done it already, don't you think?

oh yeah, i'm all about MANAGING EXPECTATIONS! i wrote about that several times in this thread when people started bringing up the subject, which btw defies the stated topic of this thread (!!!).

as i keep writing, people really have a built up sense of what lwX is gonna be and if it's NOT unified, newtek will, to quote myself on this very topic, "reap the sh1tstorm"!

from a guess on their resources, it seems unlikely to me that lwX will be unified. but the ONLY thing that makes me think newtek WILL merge is because they REFUSE to tamp down expectations. that is either telling or stupid... we shall see. : )

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

as for citing houdini, not sure who cited houdini or in what CONTEXT but it's not fundamental to the argument for a combined app. its price is irrelevant to the virtue (or absence of) of a combined app.

blender is free but that doesn't make a combined app argument more compelling by virtue of its "freeness".
--------------------------------------------------------------------

i've said it time and again, if in your work with lw, you've never desired a combined app, then it is completely reasonable for you to desire a continued split app. if you've never wished "gee i wish i could do this but i can't because it's a split app", then you will want legacy and that's legitimate.

but for people who rig characters or want to do detailed photogrammetric modeling or want to have the same fing surface editor features in layout and modeler for fs sake, or have modeler snapping and alignment control in layout, etc etc etc, the split app is a GENUINE DEFICIT.

we should indeed respect your desire to keep what is and has been useful to you but you should also recognize that what you use lw for is not the only way it can/should be used either.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

finally, as for why not switch to a merged app, like you, many of us are paid to use maya. we DO use a merged app. we see first hand everything we're missing (and as i make the case for in several posts above, what we gain by virtue of the split in terms of modeling ease). but as for me, i will NEVER buy an autodesk product. i simply can't afford it. even if i were rich, their maintenance program is a ludicrous ripoff.

so that's one reason.

another reason - and the reason why most of us are still here - we have an attachment. and some of us have the kind of attachment that leads to blind praise and a superiority complex (not referring to you). but familiarity breeds both contempt and comfort and for a lot of people for most apps, that's why they are the "X"heads that they are. cuz they're used to it.

and another is a genuine desire to make lw BETTER (as we perceive better to be). sure, we can differ on whether that is IN FACT better but the desire to improve is genuine nonetheless.

and finally, there are people threatening to leave. i think threatening is kind of pointless and childish myself but i understand the frustration and because there are things like blender (which alas, has a wretchedly UNIQUE [badbadbadbadbadbadbad] interface despite being uber capable) so price may not be the factor it once was.

so yeah, people may indeed switch to a merged app.

as for me, as i said in the beginning of this thread, i just want our liabilities to buy us something. i want lwx to be such that we don't incur worst of all worlds. that would make it worthwhile.

jin

tomtm
01-20-2009, 02:02 AM
Hi,

LW is a kind of an extreme Application. Some stuff is stone aged, other
stuff wich comes with plugins is rocket science..... HD Instance, F-Prime
and many other cool add-ons. But I can't understand, why Newtek didn't worked more closely with the developers, so we could see Instances in FPrime, so that we could Instance FiberFX on HD Instance and and....
I hope that the next Major Release unify more of it's features.
I guess in the next weeks we also get some news on the Luxology front for the next Modo Release..... I hope that we will hear something about LW 10 soon, it has still big potential!!!!!


Best
Tom

MrWyatt
01-20-2009, 02:03 AM
Funny you should bring up Houdini, since no one models or does character animation it,


"The Wild" by Disney was all done in Houdini. Side Effects helped them to build a new pipeline from the ground up. it was done entirely in Houdini. Sorry dude, but you clearly don't know what you are talking about.

dmack
01-20-2009, 03:37 AM
SSS that actually works in animation rather than flickering even when you have quality set to 1000%? That'd be a nice start.

dballesg
01-20-2009, 03:50 AM
Funny you should bring up Houdini, since no one models or does character animation it, yet LW is expected to be top-notch at *all* of these things. For 800 bucks.

Jay and Chuck has said before there will be a change on the price policies. But I don't think they expected the actual world economic situation.


Besides, merging the apps wouldn't give us anything that even compares to Houdini, unless they gave us no upgrades for 5 years and just focused on that.

But it will give us the ability of third parties doing things that you cannot do on LW right now.

The new team is constrained on that Frankenstein monster that the old team created and didn't take care of or give a damn about it. And they have been very creative on overcoming those constrains. So 10,000 kudos to them for that.

But that monster needs to be put to rest in peace, once and for all.

I am sure whatever they construct, would be new, and on a way that will allow them to be more efficient with the design and programming. Even if it doesn't include (yet) all the things we are asking for.


You guys are setting yourselves up for disappointment by expecting 4 killer apps from a company that's much smaller than Autodesk.

More than a killer app I would like to see a modernized LW. Where you do not need to do jumps or workaround on every project. I want to work with LW, not fight against it anymore.



if it's going to happen, it's going to happen despite your objections.

if it's not going to happen (which i personally am betting on... alas), it's not going to happen no matter how much we cheer for it.

jin

I hope you're prediction on this is wrong Jin! :)


oh yeah, i'm all about MANAGING EXPECTATIONS! i wrote about that several times in this thread when people started bringing up the subject, which btw defies the stated topic of this thread (!!!).

An english friend of mine Customer Manager on BT for 30 years, when I explain him the things we deal with LW, his answer is that: "I'ts all about managing customer expectations"


as i keep writing, people really have a built up sense of what lwX is gonna be and if it's NOT unified, Newtek will, to quote myself on this very topic, "reap the sh1tstorm"!

I agree, and maybe we will need to ask their cloth sizes to give them a few rain coats and sent a few "zodiacs" to survive, i.e: if they do that.


another reason - and the reason why most of us are still here - we have an attachment.

Yes I am attached to LW, because was my first 3D program owned by me. Before I used 3D Studio DOS on my work. And LW saved my butt on a project that 3D Studio couldn't handle.

I feel comfortable using it, but now has started to show a lot of limitations on many, many areas.


and another is a genuine desire to make lw BETTER (as we perceive better to be). sure, we can differ on whether that is IN FACT better but the desire to improve is genuine nonetheless.

:agree: I think all users want a better LW. No doubt about that.

David

Sensei
01-20-2009, 03:56 AM
Flickering material is in 99% result of adding RandomFloat function in LW v9.5..
Rendering engines must not randomize anywhere, otherwise frames differs, and flickers..

cresshead
01-20-2009, 04:19 AM
now that 9.6 is out we ARE counting down to the press release on lightwave x for good or not so good we'll know soon enough i hope to where and what they have instore for the next step.

in the meantime i've just started to learn maya using the ple version and 3dbuzz fundamental's dvd training seeing as i have plenty of time on my hands currently [redundant end of dec 2008]

Kuzey
01-20-2009, 04:37 AM
Hey Jin, that object/sub-object idea gave me a very cold chill and bad memories of ray dream studio. Double click on the object and enter a room where you can manipulate polygons etc. :cry:

I like the directness of Modeler and if they can keep that then the battle is half won. :D

Kuzey

cresshead
01-20-2009, 04:44 AM
ray dream studio was the app that almost put me off 3D totally!
i had corel draw and that came with dream 3d...a lite version of ray dream studio...yuk!

lucky i got a demo of bryce..changed my mind that 3d could actually be fun!

Kuzey
01-20-2009, 04:52 AM
Yes, ray dream studio must have been the worst app ever. It kept crashing on me and I could never make anything complicated :D

Jumping in and out of rooms is a total creativity killer, when it actually worked for more than 5 minutes....the good old days :hey:

Kuzey

grimoirecg
01-20-2009, 05:07 AM
Well talking about regular crashing, Lightwave is by far the most crash prone app I have ever used.
Photoshop is the probably the only app that has never crashed on me in 8 years of use.

colkai
01-20-2009, 05:44 AM
Heh, funnily enough it's one of the most stable I use. My dev IDE crashes at least 5 times a day, even when I'm not doing anything more complex than editing a line of code.

LW is rock solid compared to that, but of course, hardware / software combinations means each one of us has their own 'fun' to deal with. :p

Mike_RB
01-20-2009, 08:11 AM
as for citing houdini, not sure who cited houdini or in what CONTEXT but it's not fundamental to the argument for a combined app. its price is irrelevant to the virtue (or absence of) of a combined app.

I cited it as an example of what becomes possible in a combined environment.

Earl
01-20-2009, 11:08 AM
Jin,

I don't think it has to be a "global" subobject level enacted at once. It can be very similar to what we have now in that we enter subobject mode (ie, switch to Modeler), then if we want to work on additional objects in the scene we can simply select them from a list (just like the drop down in Modeler) then that object is loaded into subobject mode and you can work with the low-level entities between them.

It seems like it would only take one accidental "Subobject Global" click on a large scene to cause a nightmare of a crash.

I would nearly die of joy if LightWave was unified into one app for LWX. In order to keep those legacy only folks happy, they could model the union of apps to keep old workflows in tact, but allow for all the power of a unified app to be accessed. Heck, they could even ship three shortcuts: one for the full unified interface, one for the "legacy" Layout interface (still ran from the unified app, but the interface would be tailored to only show the functions of Layout), and one "legacy" Modeler interface (again, just a GUI flag for the unified app). They could even go a step further and leave an option in the preferences to place a dummy "hub" icon in the system tray to make some users feel at home (when in fact it would do nothing!!).

Regardless, there are some funky workarounds that I'm just plain sick of with the current LW system of two apps.

jin choung
01-20-2009, 11:53 AM
Hey Jin, that object/sub-object idea gave me a very cold chill and bad memories of ray dream studio. Double click on the object and enter a room where you can manipulate polygons etc. :cry:

I like the directness of Modeler and if they can keep that then the battle is half won. :D

Kuzey

well, rest assured i'm not advocating for something that's BAD! : )

i agree, i like the directness of modeler as well and so my brainstorm is my attempt to think of a method to keep that in a unified environment - cuz as noted, unified apps like maya, xsi, etc LOSE that directness (or rather never had it).

but it seems like we have a model for the kind of interaction that i was thinking of and her name is: MODO.

jin

jin choung
01-20-2009, 11:59 AM
Jin,

I don't think it has to be a "global" subobject level enacted at once. It can be very similar to what we have now in that we enter subobject mode (ie, switch to Modeler), then if we want to work on additional objects in the scene we can simply select them from a list (just like the drop down in Modeler) then that object is loaded into subobject mode and you can work with the low-level entities between them.


right, so i'm definitely saying we should have the option to drop to sub-object ON SELECTED ONLY.

and yeah, the global "drop to subobject" would NEED to have some kind of safeguard where it can prevent it if it is likely to cause a crash (can be done just by looking at scene statistics and comparing to system stats).

but the driving idea behind global subobject is so that there are no barriers between objects. as i say, something that is trivially easy (e.g. cutting polys from one object and pasting it to another [well, in modeler, we only have layers, not true object entities]) is ludicrously hard in maya because of a hard and insurmountable barrier between objects.

so the proposal for globalsubobject mode would be an attempt to just make the unified app operate like modeler when modeling.

it does seem like modo comes close (if not exactly) what i was thinking.

jin

erikals
01-20-2009, 12:46 PM
you know,.. I'm learning Maya know and all I can say is...

..."uh?"...

...i've been quite dissapointed in Maya's features, if I were to compare Maya/LW I'd say LW wins, and it'll rise even more when they fix the CA pitfalls. (i'm basically thinking semi-big productions)

the reason to me LW wins is not because Maya is bad, but rather the many drawbacks Maya has, as far as features goes. Even with Maya Unlimited.
LW's drawback is not that it "can't" anymore (ok, in some few cases there might be things here and there, but that goes for other apps as well)
Rather, imo, LW's problem is that semi-big studios don't use it for HQ production like CA, and therefore LW is missing out on proving that it can kick.

Again, it is not a matter of can't imo, it is a matter of getting a foot inside the doors
/ show big brother, "hey, look what I can do"

Mike_RB
01-20-2009, 12:58 PM
LW's drawback is not that it "can't" anymore (ok, in some few cases there might be things here and there, but that goes for other apps as well)

Yes, that is LW's drawback. You run up against walls so quickly in LW it's not even funny. Nevermind Iron Man, we just wrapped a commercial with a giant junk monster with thousands of objects constrained to an enveloped surface. We used cloth dynamics on the surface to drive hardbody dynamics with hinges and constraints on many of the items. The entire monsters kit was referenced into scenes for animation so we could be improving the rig and weighting as we were animating, and each item was instanced so we could be working on shading at the same time. (so essentially double/nested referenced).

All of this rendered with passes and overrides so comp had exactly what they needed in one shot. Thank you XSI, thank you mental ray.

LW has a lot of goodies, but it's the architecture that makes XSI, Maya, and Houdini viable places to do effects work. LW needs to step it up in the architecture department. Houdini being the one with the most connected and flexible architecture of the three as artists can create a lot of the more obscure connections with only expressions instead of scripting.

jin choung
01-20-2009, 01:03 PM
you know,.. I'm learning Maya know and all I can say is...

..."uh?"...

...i've been quite dissapointed in Maya's features, if I were to compare Maya/LW I'd say LW wins, and it'll rise even more when they fix the CA pitfalls. (i'm basically thinking semi-big productions)


as someone who uses maya everyday for work, i can tell you that the advantages and advances that maya has over lw is not imagined or apocryphal. they are real and they are substantial.

it is NOT just a matter of sticking a foot in the door and saying "look at how good i am". lw has things about it that hold up well. but to say that it is "just as good", "just as advanced" or even "just as fast" is simply not valid imo.

it's true that with almost every modern 3d app under the sun including blender, it's NOT a matter of CAN'T anymore. with enough blood sweat and tears, you can do almost anything in almost any program.

but that's not really the point.

at the end of the day, you have limited resources of time money and manpower (not to mention limited reserves of blood sweat and tears) and consideration must be given to apps that allow you to do the most quickly and efficiently.

i'm going to burst this bubble yet again (alas) - it is NOT just a matter of preference prejudice and name brand recognition that maya has the place that it does in the industry. it earns it in capability.

i want us all to be clear on that point because it's like a map - you can't get to where you want to go if you don't know where you are NOW! it's like an alcoholic - you can't get better if you don't admit you have a problem.

jin

dballesg
01-20-2009, 01:18 PM
it's true that with almost every modern 3d app under the sun including blender, it's NOT a matter of CAN'T anymore. with enough blood sweat and tears, you can do almost anything in almost any program.

jin

Maybe we need to change the gear and ask 3d Developers to pay us to use their software instead the other way around.

Sorry for the rant, but I found today like 2 bugs on 9.6 RELEASE on the short space of 2 hours. Ah, and triying to submit one the FogBugz database was down! :(

As Mike_RB said, this is not funny anymore.

David

erikals
01-20-2009, 01:19 PM
other apps are better, but that is why i said semi-big production.

the thing is, ppl seem to think they have to use e.g. Maya in order to make e.g. a realistic CG monster.

i focused a bit much on my area of 3D though, so yep, what i wrote wasn't entirely right, but to put it in other words, LW is way underrated imo.

erikals
01-20-2009, 01:20 PM
Maybe we need to change the gear and ask 3d Developers to pay us to use their software instead the other way around.

Sorry for the rant, but I found today like 2 bugs on 9.6 RELEASE on the short space of 2 hours. Ah, and triying to submit one the FogBugz database was down! :(

As Mike_RB said, this is not funny anymore.

David

and painting weights in maya crashes when you blink.

cresshead
01-20-2009, 01:23 PM
i just started to learn maya today and have watched/done around 3 hours of videos that just cover the u.i.in maya..and have yet to look/do the one's left covering viewports...to say maya is comprehensive and one that can let you do your work how you want to and there's simplyloads of ways to achieve the same result in just navigating the u.i. i can already see the power it has...it looks complex, but very adapatable and very capable and that's coming from me 10years running 3dsmax and lightwave.

love the idea of tear off panels for example.

maya has the capability and customisation people crave for lightwave 10.
something to aspire toward.:thumbsup:

jasonwestmas
01-20-2009, 01:26 PM
you know,.. I'm learning Maya know and all I can say is...

..."uh?"...

...i've been quite dissapointed in Maya's features, if I were to compare Maya/LW I'd say LW wins, and it'll rise even more when they fix the CA pitfalls. (i'm basically thinking semi-big productions)

the reason to me LW wins is not because Maya is bad, but rather the many drawbacks Maya has, as far as features goes. Even with Maya Unlimited.
LW's drawback is not that it "can't" anymore (ok, in some few cases there might be things here and there, but that goes for other apps as well)
Rather, imo, LW's problem is that semi-big studios don't use it for HQ production like CA, and therefore LW is missing out on proving that it can kick.

Again, it is not a matter of can't imo, it is a matter of getting a foot inside the doors
/ show big brother, "hey, look what I can do"

Maya/Mental Ray is better to the ones that use it everyday. Lightwave/+ 3rdparty is better to the ones who use that every day. To the ones that use both every day they will find that "Rendering" is still the only thing that makes lightwave look more attractive. I hope LW can get another 1up in another area of the production line as well. Rendering alone won't cut it imo.

dballesg
01-20-2009, 01:27 PM
and painting weights in maya crashes when you blink.

Well all the software on this world it is gonna have bugs or crashes, it is unavoidable. I was trying a couple of days ago the Houdini Apprentice, WOW it crashed on me 5 times on the space of 15 minutes.

For me LW it is quite stable.

What i was trying to say it is LW it is very capable on some areas, but sometimes when you try to do something, you find a BIG WALL [we need the ability to post textured word on the threads ;)] on front of you, and you have to options fight against it :bangwall:, or turn around it. Because almost 90% of the time you cannot jump over it.

David

jasonwestmas
01-20-2009, 01:29 PM
and painting weights in maya crashes when you blink.

Never had that problem in Maya 6 or 7. Maybe AD messed it up ;)

geothefaust
01-20-2009, 01:33 PM
Speaking of weight painting.. Where's my unified app? Speaking of unified app, where is my LWX news?

:D

jin choung
01-20-2009, 01:37 PM
Never had that problem in Maya 6 or 7. Maybe AD messed it up ;)

haven't had that problem in 8.5 either...

maya HAS BUGS for sure... just never hit that one.

one NASTY bug that maya has that i've NEVER seen in lw is that sometimes, for some reason, a scene will FAIL TO RENDER! not even at the same spot or frame.... occasionally just gives up the ghost. has nothing to do with memory or anything like that... it just stops rendering.... very very bad when you come back the next morning. not a consistent thing either but really nasty when it strikes.

jin

erikals
01-20-2009, 01:41 PM
well, as far as weighting / skinning in LW, i hope they fix those drawbacks soon.
...too booring in LW : /

Nemoid
01-20-2009, 01:49 PM
I'd say to judge properly the difference Maya vs Lw we also shouldn't forget what the software was originally thought for. Maya has always been an animation software aimed to big movie production, with heavy CA involved. So, aimed to more specialized operators, flexibility and programmability to build up a solid large pipeline , scripting because TDs can expand greatly the toolset power, and such.
Lw was initially targeted to TV series production with way less CA involved, short times to deliver a mid to good animation quality for starships , space scenes, and more. Then, rendering turned to be so good it ended to be used also in big productions too.

so philosophy of lw is being less deep, but fast and quite good for small teams which have no great time to script, program, and no great time in general. they didn't need the same level of flexibility either, because team dedicated to these tv production is usually very small and made of generalists rather than specialized operator as big production require.

BTW the modern paradigm of apps like Maya , ended to be winner even in smaller production (but it can be seen that maya could be way more productive out of the box, actually- just compare it with xsi in some areas) and Lw got behind.

For that reason, the main problem of Lw is that until version 8 and 9, it never actually evolved its inner structure to even start to become a modern app, capable and flexible as maya is.
Hopefully, Lw x could bring more towards this modernization,and couple it with fast out of the box philosophy Lw has yet.

Cageman
01-20-2009, 01:51 PM
To the ones that use both every day they will find that "Rendering" is still the only thing that makes lightwave look more attractive.

Uhm... not by a longshot... Rendering aside, there are alot of things I rather use LW for and it's related to both rigging and displacements.

Why?

Vertex maps implementation (seriously one of the best approaches in the industry)
SubPatches
Displacements implementation
No BS-nodes (that is, BS for me, not for a TD at WETA, maybe) that requires constant cleanups for everything you do.

Titus
01-20-2009, 02:01 PM
one NASTY bug that maya has that i've NEVER seen in lw is that sometimes, for some reason, a scene will FAIL TO RENDER! not even at the same spot or frame.... occasionally just gives up the ghost. has nothing to do with memory or anything like that... it just stops rendering...

I have finished a very long project using LW, and rendering was the worst part. Almost half of the scenes failed on different machines, I can't say why.

Lightwolf
01-20-2009, 02:07 PM
Flickering material is in 99% result of adding RandomFloat function in LW v9.5..
Rendering engines must not randomize anywhere, otherwise frames differs, and flickers..
Of course they can, as long as it is predictable and repeatable. And in many cases it's just about the only way to be able to render anything in a reasonable timeframe: radiosity, blurred reflections, motion blur...

Cheers,
Mike

Kuzey
01-20-2009, 02:49 PM
well, rest assured i'm not advocating for something that's BAD! : )

i agree, i like the directness of modeler as well and so my brainstorm is my attempt to think of a method to keep that in a unified environment - cuz as noted, unified apps like maya, xsi, etc LOSE that directness (or rather never had it).

but it seems like we have a model for the kind of interaction that i was thinking of and her name is: MODO.

jin

That would be the challenge, how to unite Modeler and Layout without losing what makes it so cool, directness :D

The other cool thing about the current version of LW is the real estate, there is so much room to work in. It's like the whole country side, fresh air, space to stretch etc. :D

Those unified apps like Maya, Blender, Cinema 3d etc. feel like a one room apartment with their one small viewport, where the toilet, kitchen, living room and bath occupy the same space. That's another unique thing I hope LW doesn't lose in the process of becoming a single app.

Kuzey

jasonwestmas
01-20-2009, 02:52 PM
Uhm... not by a longshot... Rendering aside, there are alot of things I rather use LW for and it's related to both rigging and displacements.

Why?

Vertex maps implementation (seriously one of the best approaches in the industry)
SubPatches
Displacements implementation
No BS-nodes (that is, BS for me, not for a TD at WETA, maybe) that requires constant cleanups for everything you do.

Not by a long shot, really?

- I do love the usages of Vmaps, you got me there, I forgot about that in the respect of it being a MAJOR feature with a lot of flexibility of different kinds of usage.

- Subpatches, have ugly creases with no edge weights, they are fast however. CC is a joke in LW for UV map work. I see no real advantages using sub-D in lightwave, not that it isn't "good".

- Displacements with APS is good and stable, MAJOR memory hog. Again nothing really advantageous over other applications. You won't get as high detail with LW displacement as you can in other rendering engines without a crap-ton of Ram. Not that you need that level of power frequently.

- Nodes, yeah never liked them in Maya, lw's implementation is better for a novice just trying to get his project done imo. Since I don't do much rendering in maya I rarely use nodes.

However Rigging with the hypergraph and outliner (If those are what you consider nodes) beats the snot out of the LW schematic view and motion panel. I even on occasion have to open up the scene editor too, it's a cluttered mess to have to bounce around that much from panel to panel and then back to viewport, one viewport being used already by the schematic view. In maya, aside from the "graph" panels it's all pretty much there in front of you already and has more viewing options to ensure comfort on one screen and less clicking. I'm a character set and Attribute editor freak too which is in essence part of character setup, all lightwave seems to offer is a long "objects list"(Which takes too long to find what you want), a viewport cursor/picker that is very rigid; a scene editor with tree-selection and viewport features that should be closer to things we use more frequently; a schematic view; and a saving and picking selection set window in the scene editor and on the bottom of the UI which are both very awkward as well.

I also have a lot to say about the graph editor and keyframe systems between the two apps. Animation and rigging in maya is actually kind of fun to me, I don't have that anxiety that I get in lw setups.

pooby
01-20-2009, 03:11 PM
Those unified apps like Maya, Blender, Cinema 3d etc. feel like a one room apartment with their one small viewport, where the toilet, kitchen, living room and bath occupy the same space. That's another unique thing I hope LW doesn't lose in the process of becoming a single app.


I only know XSI, but that doesnt feel any more cramped than modeller. Even if a model is rigged and in the process of being animated, you can easily isolate it and model on it at the origin, with nothing else in view or taking up resources.

Mike_RB
01-20-2009, 03:19 PM
I only know XSI, but that doesnt feel any more cramped than modeller. Even if a model is rigged and in the process of being animated, you can easily isolate it and model on it at the origin, with nothing else in view or taking up resources.

The 'breathing' room comment comes from not enough education in other apps. I find LW with its excessive undocked panels much worse than any other app.

Kuzey
01-20-2009, 03:26 PM
I only know XSI, but that doesnt feel any more cramped than modeller. Even if a model is rigged and in the process of being animated, you can easily isolate it and model on it at the origin, with nothing else in view or taking up resources.

Ooooo...I had a look at XSI and it seems to be close to Lightwave in terms of space, so there is hope :thumbsup:

http://www.xsibase.com/news.php?detail=1893

Do you need to heavily customize those viewports/menus etc. to get such a large space or is that pretty much the default settings.

Kuzey

pooby
01-20-2009, 03:31 PM
Do you need to heavily customize those viewports/menus etc. to get such a large space or is that pretty much the default settings

By default you get a large space, but its quite customisable. (although I pretty much keep it as it is)

Kuzey
01-20-2009, 03:38 PM
The 'breathing' room comment comes from not enough education in other apps. I find LW with its excessive undocked panels much worse than any other app.

How long do you have to try the apps before you get comfortable with the lack of space. I tried those apps and that was a major stumbling block in learning to use them, almost as big as the interface itself.

But yes, the undocked panels in LW can be streamlined or limited here and there.

:)

Kuzey

geothefaust
01-20-2009, 03:40 PM
XSI has one of the best interfaces around. So I'm not sure why someone would say that, especially when you can download the MOD tool for free and check it out. All around it WAS my fave app for rigging and animation, until it died (sort of, See AD).

The only app that really feels cluttered (Not talking about text vs icons), is LW. As Mike pointed out, it's got a bunch, no make that a **** ton of undocked panels and windows. It's great if you have a dual monitor set up. But really that stuff should all be dockable in any location the user specifies, such as inside a viewport, sidebars, bottom, top, wherever! Viewports should be tearable and dockable themselves as well.

Hell, users should be able to fully customize a panel as well, with attributes they specify. For instance, I'd like to have a panel that has a few motion controller options, settings for a few modeling tools (yeah, integrated app), and some weight painting tools. All in one panel. You get the idea.

Anyway, time will tell what direction LW is headed. I just hope we hear soon what that direction may be.

Cageman
01-20-2009, 03:42 PM
Not by a long shot, really?

Well, you said that people who use both apps doesn't see anything usefull with LW except rendering, which, in my oppinion isn't true at all. It may be true for you, but not for me.




- Subpatches, have ugly creases with no edge weights, they are fast however. CC is a joke in LW for UV map work. I see no real advantages using sub-D in lightwave, not that it isn't "good".

Well... using SubDs with Maya isn't trivial either, but at least LW is able to render their SubDs. I've been told several times that MR in Maya doesn't handle SubDs that well, so we never use them.

So, we have poly-dense objects that needs to be skinned, on the contrary, if MR could cope with it, we would use SubDs and apply displacements, but that isn't the case.




- Displacements with APS is good and stable, MAJOR memory hog. Again nothing really advantageous over other applications. You won't get as high detail with LW displacement as you can in other rendering engines without a crap-ton of Ram. Not that you need that level of power frequently.

Again, MR that is bundled with Maya is alot harder to use in such situations. With LW I know that I can combine SubDs with Displacements (easy rigging/skinning and easy detailing). Granted, there are room for ALOT of improvements with LWs abilities in this area, but it does work without technical hickups as long as you have enough ram for your needs.



- Nodes, yeah never liked them in Maya, lw's implementation is better for a novice just trying to get his project done imo. Since I don't do much rendering in maya I rarely use nodes.

Well, maybe you should re-read some Maya manuals then. Everything in Maya are nodes (pretty much).

Create a box, and you suddenly have three nodes (dag, shape and a history). Forget to delete the history node once you've skinned it, you either have to stick with it (which can cause major issues later down the pipeline) or you have to delete the history and reskinn your box (there are tools, however, that allows you to store skinnweights and apply them later). But safe to say is that, humans do make misstakes, and a simple misstake (such as forgetting to delete the history before rigging/skinning) can really screw things up big time.




However Rigging with the hypergraph and outliner (If those are what you consider nodes) beats the snot out of the LW schematic view and motion panel. I even on occasion have to open up the scene editor too, it's a cluttered mess to have to bounce around that much from panel to panel and then back to viewport, one viewport being used already by the schematic view. In maya, aside from the "graph" panels it's all pretty much there in front of you already and has more viewing options to ensure comfort on one screen and less clicking. I'm a character set and Attribute editor freak too which is in essence part of character setup, all lightwave seems to offer is a long "objects list"(Which takes too long to find what you want), a viewport cursor/picker that is very rigid; a scene editor with tree-selection and viewport features that should be closer to things we use more frequently; a schematic view; and a saving and picking selection set window in the scene editor and on the bottom of the UI which are both very awkward as well.

Thanks for the information, but I do know all this allready... it seems you simply ignored my initial response.

"There are alot of stuff that I prefer using LightWave for, and it's related to both rigging and displacements".

The keywords here are "alot" (not ALWAYS) and "prefer". The reason I prefer to do certain stuff in LW is because of ease of use and how fast I can work. Also, displacements isn't just related to displacement maps that adds details to nice objects. It's related to how I can work with animated displacements to create interresting deformation/animation. LWs Displacement node-editor in conjunction with DPKit adds power that is hard to find in Maya, at least on the same level of ease of use. And we all know that if something is easy to use, you can work fast.



I also have a lot to say about the graph editor and keyframe systems between the two apps. Animation and rigging in maya is actually kind of fun to me, I don't have that anxiety that I get in lw setups.

I think that both apps are fun to use if used for the right type of objects (if we are talking about rigging/animation). Bottomline for me is always: ease of use, work fast, good result. Wether it is Maya or LW that will provide it for me is clearly up to the subject at hand.

Kuzey
01-20-2009, 03:47 PM
By default you get a large space, but its quite customisable. (although I pretty much keep it as it is)

Cool...I wonder why the other apps can't do the same. XSI should be a guide for the newtek when uniting Modeler and Layout.

How are the panels dealt with in XSI are they docked or undocked. I'm thinking, if they are docked then they have done a top job in designing the workspace :thumbsup:

Kuzey

Mike_RB
01-20-2009, 03:49 PM
Cool...I wonder why the other apps can't do the same. XSI should be a guide for the newtek when uniting Modeler and Layout.

How are the panels dealt with in XSI are they docked or undocked. I'm thinking, if they are docked then they have done a top job in designing the workspace :thumbsup:

Kuzey

Either, you choose.

geothefaust
01-20-2009, 03:50 PM
XSI should be a guide for the newtek when uniting Modeler and Layout.
Kuzey

Agreed.

You can also do a render in any viewport. XSI has a lot of great stuff.

Kuzey
01-20-2009, 03:51 PM
Either, you choose.

Nice indeed :thumbsup:

Kuzey

Kuzey
01-20-2009, 03:54 PM
Agreed.

You can also do a render in any viewport. XSI has a lot of great stuff.

More options the better I would say.

Kuzey

jasonwestmas
01-20-2009, 05:48 PM
Well, you said that people who use both apps doesn't see anything usefull with LW except rendering, which, in my oppinion isn't true at all. It may be true for you, but not for me.


no,no I said LW is not "more attractive" than Maya. I think maya is more attractive in most cases other than the rendering part of the pipeline.




Well... using SubDs with Maya isn't trivial either, but at least LW is able to render their SubDs. I've been told several times that MR in Maya doesn't handle SubDs that well, so we never use them.

Ok, but I was talking about strict modeling procedures, not MR rendering since you said "Rendering Aside". I don't like MR and I'm not very familiar with it but I'm sure you can get some good Sub-D work out of it. I'm glad it's easier on the LW side. I wasn't debating that, I'm still talking outside of the rendering "realm".



Again, MR that is bundled with Maya is alot harder to use in such situations. With LW I know that I can combine SubDs with Displacements (easy rigging/skinning and easy detailing). Granted, there are room for ALOT of improvements with LWs abilities in this area, but it does work without technical hickups as long as you have enough ram for your needs.
I can agree with that. I pretty much like the LW implementation, though it being a memory hog. So do you get artifacts and such using MR and displacements?




Well, maybe you should re-read some Maya manuals then. Everything in Maya are nodes (pretty much).

Create a box, and you suddenly have three nodes (dag, shape and a history). Forget to delete the history node once you've skinned it, you either have to stick with it (which can cause major issues later down the pipeline) or you have to delete the history and reskinn your box (there are tools, however, that allows you to store skinnweights and apply them later). But safe to say is that, humans do make misstakes, and a simple misstake (such as forgetting to delete the history before rigging/skinning) can really screw things up big time.

Well everything in lightwave could be considered a node too, e.g. the surface layering system is just one big node. It's just that many of the "nodal interfaces" in LW are not as interactive and as flexible as maya's nodes or the LW Node editor. But that's part of the beauty of lightwave, simplicity that works good enough in most cases. I can use maya in a similar manner. e.g. I don't need the history stack too often so I often delete it. I don't have to go into nodes to activate basic surfacing parameter either.




Thanks for the information, but I do know all this allready... it seems you simply ignored my initial response.

"There are alot of stuff that I prefer using LightWave for, and it's related to both rigging and displacements".

Hmph, ok that's fine. I wasn't trying to convince you differently. After all I'm sure anyone could put together a "play-dough" cartoon character scene just fine in many apps.; however I still think the Maya UI is better suited for more involved rigging situations, which is more daunting to do in lightwave because of the UI and over all character setup design. (I'm starting to sound like Jin)


The keywords here are "alot" (not ALWAYS) and "prefer". The reason I prefer to do certain stuff in LW is because of ease of use and how fast I can work. Also, displacements isn't just related to displacement maps that adds details to nice objects. It's related to how I can work with animated displacements to create interresting deformation/animation. LWs Displacement node-editor in conjunction with DPKit adds power that is hard to find in Maya, at least on the same level of ease of use. And we all know that if something is easy to use, you can work fast.

I was talking about geometric displacement detail in general, animated or not. The simplicity in the LW displacements is definately there. It's not quite there for closeup detailing imo.




I think that both apps are fun to use if used for the right type of objects (if we are talking about rigging/animation). Bottomline for me is always: ease of use, work fast, good result. Wether it is Maya or LW that will provide it for me is clearly up to the subject at hand.

I'm a character guy, so I'm a bit biased when it comes to what one defines as scene complexity.

Thanks for your opinions and information but aside from the displacement difficulties in MR I already knew all that. ;) No doubt I'm sure you've been in this game longer than I have though.

Mike_RB
01-20-2009, 05:54 PM
Well... using SubDs with Maya isn't trivial either, but at least LW is able to render their SubDs. I've been told several times that MR in Maya doesn't handle SubDs that well, so we never use them.

So, we have poly-dense objects that needs to be skinned, on the contrary, if MR could cope with it, we would use SubDs and apply displacements, but that isn't the case.

Again, MR that is bundled with Maya is alot harder to use in such situations. With LW I know that I can combine SubDs with Displacements (easy rigging/skinning and easy detailing). Granted, there are room for ALOT of improvements with LWs abilities in this area, but it does work without technical hickups as long as you have enough ram for your needs.

We're basing our current film pipeline around XSI and MR. We have tons of hard surface SDS models and displaced characters and have no problems. MR is a champ a this stuff and is great on memory.

A Mejias
01-20-2009, 10:18 PM
Hey Jin, that object/sub-object idea gave me a very cold chill and bad memories of ray dream studio. Double click on the object and enter a room where you can manipulate polygons etc. :cry:

I like the directness of Modeler and if they can keep that then the battle is half won. :D

Kuzey

OH MAN, YEAH! [Shiver!] I started using it when it was just Ray Dream Designer. It did have some cool features like vector and node based texturing. I later jumped to LW 4.0 and asked for node based texturing ever since. :)

toby
01-20-2009, 10:19 PM
"The Wild" by Disney was all done in Houdini. Side Effects helped them to build a new pipeline from the ground up. it was done entirely in Houdini. Sorry dude, but you clearly don't know what you are talking about.That's one out of dozens of movies that used houdini!! How do you expect to make a point with that? No one said houdini 'can't' do CA.

and from their website
"From character rigging and animation to lighting, virtually every frame has been touched by Houdini." so it was not done *entirely* in houdini, and I don't see anything about modeling. Also, it was c.o.r.e.'s pipeline, not disney's. Which means that you "clearly don't know what you're talking about".

How does it feel to have your meaning exaggerated and picked through solely for the purpose of ridiculing it?

toby
01-20-2009, 11:07 PM
oh yeah, i'm all about MANAGING EXPECTATIONS! i wrote about that several times in this thread when people started bringing up the subject, which btw defies the stated topic of this thread (!!!).

as i keep writing, people really have a built up sense of what lwX is gonna be and if it's NOT unified, newtek will, to quote myself on this very topic, "reap the sh1tstorm"!

from a guess on their resources, it seems unlikely to me that lwX will be unified. but the ONLY thing that makes me think newtek WILL merge is because they REFUSE to tamp down expectations. that is either telling or stupid... we shall see. : )I agree on all counts, the sentiment was not directed at you, just explaining my position.



as for citing houdini, not sure who cited houdini or in what CONTEXT but it's not fundamental to the argument for a combined app. its price is irrelevant to the virtue (or absence of) of a combined app.

blender is free but that doesn't make a combined app argument more compelling by virtue of its "freeness".
I would agree if they were just planning out a new 3d app, but LW would need to spend 'extra' cash that merged apps wouldn't have to. Cash that could go towards making it scriptable or some other super-duper feature, or to make it more robust. And I personally don't think any free app's price should be factored in comparisons with non-free apps to begin with.



i've said it time and again, if in your work with lw, you've never desired a combined app, then it is completely reasonable for you to desire a continued split app. if you've never wished "gee i wish i could do this but i can't because it's a split app", then you will want legacy and that's legitimate.

but for people who rig characters or want to do detailed photogrammetric modeling or want to have the same fing surface editor features in layout and modeler for fs sake, or have modeler snapping and alignment control in layout, etc etc etc, the split app is a GENUINE DEFICIT.

we should indeed respect your desire to keep what is and has been useful to you but you should also recognize that what you use lw for is not the only way it can/should be used either.

Agreed, but you seem to be the only one paying any respect to the split app side of the argument, so don't be surprised if you see me arguing it in the future.

jin choung
01-21-2009, 12:59 AM
I agree on all counts, the sentiment was not directed at you, just explaining my position.


[QUOTE=toby;810485]I would agree if they were just planning out a new 3d app, but LW would need to spend 'extra' cash that merged apps wouldn't have to. Cash that could go towards making it scriptable or some other super-duper feature, or to make it more robust. And I personally don't think any free app's price should be factored in comparisons with non-free apps to begin with.

that's reasonable - foss is special case for all kinds of reasons. but there's still carrarra, truespace, etc. sure it certainly WOULD cost bucks to integrate with a preexisting (and split) system - so much so that most of us expect that it would have to be an xsi2si/maya2poweranimator style ground floor, total tear down, rewrite. and again, that's why *i* personally don't see it happening for 10.

as for other features... i dunno, i disagree on that point. imo, lw has pretty much reached the pinnacle of its lifecycle in this incarnation a while ago. there are inbuilt liabilities and we're hitting that wall regularly now.

i keep calling lw frankenstein for a reason. we already have a bunch of parts bolted on, most of it rather inelegantly, and it seems like it's on the verge of just rupturing all over the floor now.

adding more body parts doesn't sound like it would make things better. perhaps may make things worse.

imo, as i've said, the thing that would make lw worthwhile under this guise is raw muscle, polygonal monster, moves the most the fastest. ugly as fing sin but in a tussle, you want it on YOUR side. or as i've been saying, "go soviet" - what you lack in technology you make up for in mass.

and the other endeavor worth undertaking is not expanding but REDUCING. operator overloadingm consolidating, stripping out redundancies.

those are the only two features i personally feel even merit developing on a non rewrite.


Agreed, but you seem to be the only one paying any respect to the split app side of the argument, so don't be surprised if you see me arguing it in the future.

that's fair. fire at will.

jin

toby
01-21-2009, 01:15 AM
that's reasonable - foss is special case for all kinds of reasons. but there's still carrarra, truespace, etc. sure it certainly WOULD cost bucks to integrate with a preexisting (and split) system - so much so that most of us expect that it would have to be an xsi2si/maya2poweranimator style ground floor, total tear down, rewrite. and again, that's why *i* personally don't see it happening for 10.

as for other features... i dunno, i disagree on that point. imo, lw has pretty much reached the pinnacle of its lifecycle in this incarnation a while ago. there are inbuilt liabilities and we're hitting that wall regularly now.

i keep calling lw frankenstein for a reason. we already have a bunch of parts bolted on, most of it rather inelegantly, and it seems like it's on the verge of just rupturing all over the floor now.

adding more body parts doesn't sound like it would make things better. perhaps may make things worse.

imo, as i've said, the thing that would make lw worthwhile under this guise is raw muscle, polygonal monster, moves the most the fastest. ugly as fing sin but in a tussle, you want it on YOUR side. or as i've been saying, "go soviet" - what you lack in technology you make up for in mass.

and the other endeavor worth undertaking is not expanding but REDUCING. operator overloadingm consolidating, stripping out redundancies.

those are the only two features i personally feel even merit developing on a non rewrite.

Um - I was under the impression that they *are* doing a rewrite, but only a little at a time, in order to prevent a huge market-sharing loss a la xsi -

MrWyatt
01-21-2009, 01:44 AM
That's one out of dozens of movies that used houdini!! How do you expect to make a point with that? No one said houdini 'can't' do CA.

and from their website
"From character rigging and animation to lighting, virtually every frame has been touched by Houdini." so it was not done *entirely* in houdini, and I don't see anything about modeling. Also, it was c.o.r.e.'s pipeline, not disney's. Which means that you "clearly don't know what you're talking about".

How does it feel to have your meaning exaggerated and picked through solely for the purpose of ridiculing it?

How does it feel? Hm, not that bad actually, because although I have to admit that my info on hat subject might not have been that good (I've been told this by Jeff Wagner from Side effects at the last fmx in Stuttgart/Germany last year, but obviously he must have told the story a lot brighter than it truly was I guess), My initial point stays true, and that would be that it simply isn't true that no one models in it or does CA.

So do I feel ridiculed? Certainly not.

PS.: I might have been a bit harsh and for that I appologise sincerely. I am usually not the guy who gets personal as I don't like it when others do it.
But may I remind anyone who reads this that making bold statements of the like "Funny you should bring up Houdini, since no one models or does character animation it" kind of attracts flak. I wouldn't let a statement like "There has never been done any good CA in Lightwave" pass either. Statements of that caliber are simply wrong, and show a certain degree of ignorance and because I am also only a human like all of you guys, I got weak and bashed on it.
Again sorry if I hurt your feelings.
But please keep statements like the one I quoted to a minimum if you don't want to be ridiculed.

peace

Guillaume

jin choung
01-21-2009, 02:09 AM
Um - I was under the impression that they *are* doing a rewrite, but only a little at a time, in order to prevent a huge market-sharing loss a la xsi -

yeah...

....

yeah....

i still can't tell what's smoke and what's fire in regards to that.

a lot of the rewrite work has purportedly ALREADY taken place (since 6 i believe) and there's some evidence of that... but.... it still looks and feels remarkably similar. no matter how much they tout the rewrite effort, on the surface is where it matters.

so how much does the rewrite count if it's not actually apparent?

and as for incremental rewrites, i don't see how that's going to result in something that is in fact different, counts as a "rewrite", when all is said and done, at the end of that journey.

i can't see how you go from si to xsi incrementally. i can't see how you go from power animator to maya incrementally.

basically, i don't believe in the ability of turning a p-51 into an f-15 WHILE THE THING IS FLYING!

not to mention the fact that there would literally be NOTHING left of the p-51 in the f-15 when all is said and done (if done right) in which case it's inconceivable to renovate instead of doing a "total tear down" or a separate project altogether.

so if we're coding while in flight, i gotta believe that it's pretty much the equivalent of tune up and repairs or just grafting another wing on.

for some reason....

: )

jin

Cageman
01-21-2009, 02:46 AM
We're basing our current film pipeline around XSI and MR. We have tons of hard surface SDS models and displaced characters and have no problems. MR is a champ a this stuff and is great on memory.

:)

You guys are using XSI... totally different ballgame! :)

MR and Maya, however... *shrug*

pooby
01-21-2009, 02:58 AM
Originally Posted by jin choung
basically, i don't believe in the ability of turning a p-51 into an f-15 WHILE THE THING IS FLYING!

I was quite impressed with Jin for this too.

MrWyatt
01-21-2009, 04:21 AM
:)

You guys are using XSI... totally different ballgame! :)

MR and Maya, however... *shrug*
quoted for agreement.
the implementation of MR into XSI is the best one out there. Maya's (and from what I have heard 3dmax's) are the worst. rendertime subd are unusable, the renderings crash constantly with the logfile saying "an error has occured , see logfile for details"
hahaha, very funny.
seriously MR is powerful, but in maya it's a pain in the ***** most of the time.

Nemoid
01-21-2009, 04:48 AM
Not a programmer here, but i do agree an app can't be rewritten while staying in the market.
I once (8.0 age) proposed onto a CGTalk discussion a parallel approach to rewriting, i do hope this approach has been adopted.
The reason is you actually need to rewrite a brand new core with flexible structure, then maybe new programmed tools (even for 9.x series) can be added on top of this core and get advantage from it.
Until the work isn't finished you still have your old fashioned app in the market.This is what Softimage made to make XSI.
It also means that part of what's actually programmed now for 9.x series can be useful for new integrated version too.

dballesg
01-21-2009, 04:56 AM
basically, i don't believe in the ability of turning a p-51 into an f-15 WHILE THE THING IS FLYING!

jin

Unless you are Doctor Manhattan ;)



I think it is remarkable that the separation/unification discussion is still going on. Or is it. I know that Newtek has decided, and can't wait to see the result...


Olivier, do you have inside information that the rest of mortals do not have, or were you speculating? Only curious.

David

Cageman
01-21-2009, 05:38 AM
I think it is remarkable that the separation/unification discussion is still going on. Or is it. I know that Newtek has decided, and can't wait to see the result...

Just for the record. The things I use LW for are not at all related to the separation of modeler/layout. I'm all for a unified application.

:)

Kuzey
01-21-2009, 07:37 AM
OH MAN, YEAH! [Shiver!] I started using it when it was just Ray Dream Designer. It did have some cool features like vector and node based texturing. I later jumped to LW 4.0 and asked for node based texturing ever since. :)

So ray dream had nodes...I never got that far to find out. I would always render my objects in Bryce :D

Kuzey

Myagi
01-21-2009, 10:37 AM
Still I see most of the people defending LWs separation being the ones never having used anything else long enough to 'get it'.

I think that's a dangerous generalization. For example, I have used max and maya over several years in the span of the last 10+ years (max more and earlier than maya). I "get it", it's just that "it" doesn't fit my taste, needs and style of working, and I think that applies to more people rather than saying they're sitting in the dark and haven't seen the light yet.

Without going into saying feature/design A is better than B, I'd say it's great that there are different apps for different tastes and needs. What rubs me the wrong way a bit, is when people seem to want to turn one to be like the other, why not just use the other instead then, and let there be diversity. That is not to say there aren't changes and additions that would be great, just turning it into essentially something completely different with the same name slapped on to it would be sad.

Mike_RB
01-21-2009, 10:52 AM
I think that's a dangerous generalization. For example, I have used max and maya over several years in the span of the last 10+ years (max more and earlier than maya). I "get it", it's just that "it" doesn't fit my taste,

Why are you assuming we can't have it both ways? One app, with a big modeler button on the top right that reorganizes the interface and presents you with a single model in object space. Surely you don't think the LW engineers aren't capable of this... Then you get the best of both worlds.

EDIT: XSI has this with it's object view. Works quite well.

jasonwestmas
01-21-2009, 10:56 AM
Yeah, I'm sure it's completely possible for the future version of lightwave to include modeling features placed within the animation environment. The modeler and hub still could be used like it is today for those who enjoy that and find it more useful.

cresshead
01-21-2009, 11:05 AM
me...i want to read some 'news' on this not yet more speculation:thumbsup:

talk about 'hanging on a thread' !:lol:

bobakabob
01-21-2009, 11:24 AM
Yeah, I'm sure it's completely possible for the future version of lightwave to include modeling features placed within the animation environment. The modeler and hub still could be used like it is today for those who enjoy that and find it more useful.

A unified app is the only way to go, especially for CA. We really need point manipulation and animateble modelling in Layout or equivalent.

I can't see why anyone would be turned off. There are surely only advantages e.g. knowing exactly how a model is going to look when rendered instead of swapping between two apps via a 'Hub', editing weightmaps for deformation in realtime.

Superficially Modeler and Layout already have virtually identical UIs which are flexible, customiseable and and above all in plain English!

Something like XSI's tabbed interface would be a compromise.

Of course there's the small matter of the coding... :D

Myagi
01-21-2009, 11:26 AM
Why are you assuming we can't have it both ways? One app, with a big modeler button on the top right that reorganizes the interface and presents you with a single model in object space. Surely you don't think the LW engineers aren't capable of this... Then you get the best of both worlds.

I wasn't really assuming anything :) I have been thinking that that kind of solution would be a good compromise. I just wanted to keep any implementation specifics out of my response and just keep it general, as there seems to be no unified consensus of what unified actually means, pardon the pun.

Some mean just same exe and same gl code (allthough that hasn't to be the least bit related as common code can be shared with dll's without the need to have two separate codebases) and no hub, others mean a single window and that every-poly-modeling-stuff-you-do-is-part-of-the-ani-timeline type of integration etc etc. There are just too many views about what unified even means that I wanted to stay away from it.... as long as I get to have my clean and focused modeler in its separate window that is ;)

Mike_RB
01-21-2009, 11:37 AM
as there seems to be no unified consensus of what unified actually means, pardon the pun.

I think I have the answer to that. All the scene data in accessible and editable in one place. Then they can spend as long as they want messing with the UI to make it slick and 'lw-like' without putting the chains back on.

Lightwolf
01-21-2009, 12:01 PM
I think that's a dangerous generalization. For example, I have used max and maya over several years in the span of the last 10+ years (max more and earlier than maya). I "get it", it's just that "it" doesn't fit my taste, needs and style of working, and I think that applies to more people rather than saying they're sitting in the dark and haven't seen the light yet.
See, I'm the opposite... I haven't seriously worked in other apps except for some coding for Maya and the odd Modo stint... but I've always been heavily for the integration of Layout and Modeler.
Basically because it makes a lot more sense from a technical point of view... and because there is no reason why the current workflow couldn't be kept precisely the way it is today... with the exception of the flaky hub being replaced by a solid, common core.

So, in that way I have the advantage of not being tainted by the mediocre implementation in some other app and can approach the whole idea with a lot more idealism ;)

Cheers,
Mike

Intuition
01-21-2009, 12:14 PM
Yeah sadly for a long time I was supporting keeping modeler and layout seperate mainly because I couldn't imagine having all the buttons together.

Now I have been in other apps a good 2 1/2 years and I really have to say, especially modo and XSI, that a single workspace rocks if you know how to set up the GUI.

I have been in modo modeling a scene and adjusting the UV's so I can see them in the camera view at the same time. SOOOOOOO MUCH FASTER and efficient. No way I wanna go back to switching between Layout and modeler.

Same with XSI, if I am animating a character and need to adjust the weights...BAM..turn on weight paint... brush brush brush, look at the camera view. Done.

Nuff said.

JeffrySG
01-21-2009, 12:25 PM
So ray dream had nodes...I never got that far to find out. I would always render my objects in Bryce :D

Kuzey

Yeah, the texturing was pretty powerful for the time, even if the computers weren't. I still have my two RayDream books that I contributed a chapter to. I think there are a few people who wrote stuff for those books around on the forums here. It seems like it was ages and ages ago.

jasonwestmas
01-21-2009, 02:02 PM
A unified app is the only way to go, especially for CA. We really need point manipulation and animateble modelling in Layout or equivalent.

I can't see why anyone would be turned off. There are surely only advantages e.g. knowing exactly how a model is going to look when rendered instead of swapping between two apps via a 'Hub', editing weightmaps for deformation in realtime.

Superficially Modeler and Layout already have virtually identical UIs which are flexible, customiseable and and above all in plain English!

Something like XSI's tabbed interface would be a compromise.

Of course there's the small matter of the coding... :D


I'm in complete agreement with this integration actually. I'm not so sure if NT or the current state of the LW code is. I'm perfectly comfortable with maya's interface when I was using it all the time. Can't see why the single environment thing couldn't work for lightwave too!

erikals
01-21-2009, 02:22 PM
i'm sure it can, probably more a question of time (=money)
my suggestion was to integrate it little by little.

as for MR in Maya rendering bad SubD's, i think that is more a thing of the past?

hrgiger
01-21-2009, 02:24 PM
I've always been for keeping modeler and Layout separate. I still am, but only in workflow. The underlying program should be unified.

geothefaust
01-21-2009, 02:26 PM
I like how max has the isolate object mode, or whatever it's called. That would suffice just fine.

Myagi
01-21-2009, 02:28 PM
See, I'm the opposite... I haven't seriously worked in other apps except for some coding for Maya and the odd Modo stint... but I've always been heavily for the integration of Layout and Modeler.
Basically because it makes a lot more sense from a technical point of view... and because there is no reason why the current workflow couldn't be kept precisely the way it is today... with the exception of the flaky hub being replaced by a solid, common core.

So, in that way I have the advantage of not being tainted by the mediocre implementation in some other app and can approach the whole idea with a lot more idealism ;)


Just to clarify, I don't really mind a unified code/process (ie avoiding the whole hub thing), as long as I get a modeler UI that works like now. To be honest that's likely how I'd code it too since the hub part is just a bunch of extra work and source of bugs.

I suppose you could say that I'm not too fond of frontend unification (or rather the modeler getting killed and swallowed by layout as most of my time is spent in modeler), but have no issues with backend unification.

MrWyatt
01-21-2009, 02:44 PM
...
as for MR in Maya rendering bad SubD's, i think that is more a thing of the past?

Well I use MR for maya in a feature animation film production on a day to day basis at the moment and I can tell you The problems are still there, no matter how often we have reported to AD and no matter how many testfiles we sent them. They have rewritten the rendertime subd's alright, but they still don't work especially when doing viewdependant subdivisions. We work in maya 2008 at the moment as severe showstopper bugs prevent us from migrating to 2009, but the bugs are in there too. I tested this as 2009 was still beta and even the release version messes things up. So if you don't have had problems with it, more power to you and may luck stay on your side, but as it stands from my point of view, MR for maya is still unusable with rendertime subd's.

Intuition
01-21-2009, 02:45 PM
I like how max has the isolate object mode, or whatever it's called. That would suffice just fine.

In the early days of modo 301 alpha there was an animate/model button that would turn on and off the animation and your models would snap back to 0,0,0, workd space or whatever the original position was. The screen bg was a slight blue in model mode and changed to a slight green in animation mode.

I really liked this feature but it was removed. I realize now it was redundant because the model tab and animate tabs do the same thing.

kfinla
01-21-2009, 02:58 PM
My only concern, in whatever NT have or have not done for LW 10 is that it still feels like lightwave. I'm all for a new GUI though. I have used everything under the sun and often in a production environment, yet I still find myself using LW for personal work. Modo is probably the only app that I liked the feel of that is "unified" (though I guess everything is but LW)

Cageman
01-21-2009, 03:00 PM
In the early days of modo 301 alpha there was an animate/model button that would turn on and off the animation and your models would snap back to 0,0,0, workd space or whatever the original position was. The screen bg was a slight blue in model mode and changed to a slight green in animation mode.

I still find it hilarious that we have to explain to people that it doesn't really have to change much from what we have now compared to a merged Layout/Modeler.

:D

I can honestly ONLY see positive things with a merge.

adamredwoods
01-21-2009, 03:29 PM
As soon as LW merges, Maya and Max will be "split"... Max= layout, maya=modeler

Lightwolf
01-21-2009, 03:56 PM
My only concern, in whatever NT have or have not done for LW 10 is that it still feels like lightwave.
That's surprisingly hard to define except for a few obvious points.
I totally agree though.

Cheers,
Mike

geothefaust
01-22-2009, 12:14 AM
In the early days of modo 301 alpha there was an animate/model button that would turn on and off the animation and your models would snap back to 0,0,0, workd space or whatever the original position was. The screen bg was a slight blue in model mode and changed to a slight green in animation mode.

I really liked this feature but it was removed. I realize now it was redundant because the model tab and animate tabs do the same thing.

See, that's cool though. It may be redundant but a visual cue is also nice. Sounds subtle enough.


PS- Your work on BSG is awesome. :)

erikals
01-22-2009, 03:45 AM
...checking stretchy rig in Maya right now, and with all those expressions and stuff that needs to be added I must say the LW method looks way more easy/fast.

for semi-big stuff LW kicks imo.

maybe NT should gather a list over big companies and focus more on their needs.
they do seem to get better at it...

Matt
01-22-2009, 07:04 AM
PS- Your work on BSG is awesome. :)

I happened to catch an episode of Battlestar Galactica the other night while flicking channels. Hadn't seen it before.

Nice CG, but the script?!?! WHAT is with the totally ridiculous "frackin'" line? It was in every frackin' other piece of frackin' dialogue, totally frackin' ruined it, what on earth where they frackin' thinking?

Frack!

The 'shaky cam' action was a bit much too, two people standing talking, yet the camera was all over the place in an attempt to 'make it real' and more 'exciting'!

Frack!

cresshead
01-22-2009, 07:08 AM
I happened to catch an episode of Battlestar Galactica the other night while flicking channels. Hadn't seen it before.

Nice CG, but the script?!?! WHAT is with the totally ridiculous "frackin'" line? It was in every frackin' other piece of frackin' dialogue, totally frackin' ruined it, what on earth where they frackin' thinking?

Frack!

BSG IS FRACKING AWESOME!:D

now where's the info on lw10!
frack me we've waited long enough...
we wonna nuke those fracking toasters [xsi, maya etc] and send them back into the fracking dark ages with the frack tastic lw10 beta!:lwicon:

get your "frack on" and and drop the info dudes

COBRASoft
01-22-2009, 10:32 AM
As a developer of a multi-module application I have my own idea how they could solve the 2-in-1 or 2-stay-seperate problem. I had this kind of problem with a dispatching module (timeline and corresponding list of orders).

It is possible to make the GUI to allow this to happen. Imagine it would be like MDI (multiple document interface). This way you could have 2 tabs (or more) with different views (user-definable?). Each view based on the same objects of coarse. When you want a view on a seperate monitor, just drag it out and place it there, with the possibility to tab it back or add more viewtabs.

jin choung
01-22-2009, 11:57 AM
...checking stretchy rig in Maya right now, and with all those expressions and stuff that needs to be added I must say the LW method looks way more easy/fast.


what's the method for stretchy ik in lw? haven't looked into the lw side of that at all.

jin

badllarma
01-22-2009, 12:58 PM
Maybe you all won't have to wait long just got an email and it looks like a 10 to me :)

Cageman
01-22-2009, 01:01 PM
Maybe you all won't have to wait long just got an email and it looks like a 10 to me :)

Email?

Newsletter or what?

badllarma
01-22-2009, 01:03 PM
http://www.newtek.com/forums/showthread.php?t=94255

Matt
01-22-2009, 06:30 PM
That's surprisingly hard to define except for a few obvious points.
I totally agree though.

Cheers,
Mike

It's difficult to put into words, but I know, for me, exactly what it feels like.

geothefaust
01-22-2009, 08:14 PM
what's the method for stretchy ik in lw? haven't looked into the lw side of that at all.

jin

It's pretty easy. On the motion panel you can set IK for position and scaling, with any combination thereof to achieve your desire look, and of course blend them too.

EDIT: I should point out that I didn't get great looking stuff with scaling of course, you'd probably want to use position with IK, it looked better. Also, joints looked better as well with this, zbones... Not so much.

jin choung
01-22-2009, 08:39 PM
It's pretty easy. On the motion panel you can set IK for position and scaling, with any combination thereof to achieve your desire look, and of course blend them too.

EDIT: I should point out that I didn't get great looking stuff with scaling of course, you'd probably want to use position with IK, it looked better. Also, joints looked better as well with this, zbones... Not so much.

nice. that IS easier than in maya. stuff like this and the ik popping compensation is exactly the kind of stuff that would make lw compelling and more accessible.

jin

geothefaust
01-23-2009, 12:07 AM
No doubt about it. A lot easier, and a lot more fun then I remember in maya (or hell even before 9.6). :)

I'm still new to rigging, but I'm picking it up pretty quickly thanks to new rigging stuff they added in 9.6. It's a lot of fun rigging too, I had no idea. :D

starbase1
01-23-2009, 05:08 AM
Yep, there's a teaser for a MAJOR release!

Note that:
It was sent to the Lightwave audience, not Newtek cutomers in general.
The URL features the word CORE

Can anyone crack the code though?!?!

I view it as distinctly possible that this is 10.0, anyone who thinks they only start on a new major release after all the point releases are done does not know software development.

This would be particularly true if the big part was an interface overhaul, which would be essentially independent of what's underneath.

http://www.newtek.com/core/

geothefaust
01-23-2009, 11:45 AM
BSG IS FRACKING AWESOME!:D


Quoted for truth and agreement! I fracking love BSG!!...And what really did happen to Earth? :help:

A Mejias
01-23-2009, 04:34 PM
Bsg rules!

Oedo 808
01-23-2009, 09:34 PM
I'm a bit of a newcomer to the LightWave party, and as I had tried it first obviously I'm quite happy with the feel of it, although being a hobbiest is different from needing it for work in a production environment. I wouldn't be against Layout and Modeler being merged as them being seperate hasn't been great for me even in my limited experience, but I do worry about Modeler losing it's feel when I hear all this talk of change.

OT: On the subject of BSG, I find it's quite enjoyable what I've seen of it, but maybe Camera Shake Galactica would have been a better name. It's funny, I think the word 'Frack' is uber cheesy, but I'm not sure if it's this that gets on my nerves or the implausible amount of times it's used. Pretty much what Matt said.

geothefaust
01-24-2009, 01:08 AM
On BSG - They do over use "frack" and the camera shake. But I can overlook it's few shortcomings. :)

On LW overhaul - Bring it on.

toby
01-24-2009, 01:32 AM
BSG IS FRACKING AWESOME!:D

now where's the info on lw10!
frack me we've waited long enough...
we wonna nuke those fracking toasters [xsi, maya etc] and send them back into the fracking dark ages with the frack tastic lw10 beta!:lwicon:

get your "frack on" and and drop the info dudes
*sput* *sputter* (spewing beer) pahahahahahaha!

cresshead
01-24-2009, 05:58 AM
i'd have a good guess that this thread's title question is now redundant with the hoopla around the cryptic clues and puzzles newtek started throwing up onto the web this week.

my question NOW is will newtek's next step [lw10 or whatever they will call it] be enough to put them alongside maya and houdini or in front of them?

just how much of a leap forward will lightwave 10 c.o.r.e is going to be when you compare to other apps?


my hopes are for modeling in layout finally, instacing, FULL history and a proper undo system and basically a NEW app with the base being the lightwave render engine.

and an upgrade path from lightwave to whatever they've cooked up in the last couple of years behind closed doors!

not asking for much eh!

Jim M
01-24-2009, 06:02 AM
Its just nice to see them keeping the ball rolling. I hope they can see that generally as a user base we appreciate what a great update LW9.6 is, and we appreciate the efforts thus far !

Mike_RB
01-24-2009, 08:26 AM
my question NOW is will newtek's next step [lw10 or whatever they will call it] be enough to put them alongside maya and houdini or in front of them?

I hope Houdini is a major source of inspiration as there is little you can't to in that app, however it would benefit from a LW like front end for 'ease of use'.

cresshead
01-24-2009, 08:33 AM
I hope Houdini is a major source of inspiration as there is little you can't to in that app, however it would benefit from a LW like front end for 'ease of use'.

:agree:

let's hope newtek take the node editor to everywhere in the new version of lightwave or whatever they call it...:newtek:

UbiGuy
01-24-2009, 09:03 AM
Are we sure LW10 is comming?

If it's true, I hope we will see :

- Modeler and Layout in one application.

- Spline animation possibility.

- History or stack hability. Nodal contruction if possible...

- A new Particles system and an updated Hypervoxel shader.

I'm an vfx artist and LW seem obsolete for me...


Maybe LW market is not the same than the other 3D application but I expect something really impressive for LW10 core...

Lewis
01-24-2009, 09:13 AM
I'm pretty sure it's not Lw 10 release date (heck we just got 9.6 this week) but since it's LightWave 3D subject it must be related to LW or Future LWX :).

cresshead
01-24-2009, 09:17 AM
maybe newtek will throw a node based compositor in there as well to take the sting out of blender and xsi essentials...you never know!

mdesign
01-24-2009, 10:07 AM
Oh, boy! Men! Why are you addicted to "merging LW in one app"? Why does it matter for you? I can't see no reason in that. And moreover all of you want too much to be merged together... Just a simple rule: more complicated/integrated and you get more unstable and full of bugs. I'v never ever heard of high-end audio devices with perfect sound which components were assembled together in a single box made of cheap plastic and unknown devices.

cresshead
01-24-2009, 10:10 AM
Oh, boy! Men! Why are you addicted to "merging LW in one app"? Why does it matter for you? I can't see no reason in that. And moreover all of you want too much to be merged together... Just a simple rule: more complicated/integrated and you get more unstable and full of bugs. I'v never ever heard of high-end audio devices with perfect sound which components were assembled together in a single box made of cheap plastic and unknown devices.

you may want to do some research into 3d apps and not be swayed by analogue synths from the late 1970's!...with their tuniing prone to be unstable in different weather conditions..

and REALLY have to not looked at current Audio apps like logic pro or roland's sonar...it's ALL in the app..ALL intergrated...:beerchug:

by the way isn't it a turn around with people LOW expectations of the nexr update...now totally switched around with this marketing pre BUZZ from newtek...hope they deliver a cool new app!

MrWyatt
01-25-2009, 03:58 AM
maybe newtek will throw a node based compositor in there as well to take the sting out of blender and xsi essentials...you never know!

Houdini also has compositing and is nodebased from top to bottom. Indeed itwould be cool if NT would look into bringing a bit of that into LW'S successor .
:D

silviotoledo
01-25-2009, 05:30 AM
http://www.newtek.com/forums/showthread.php?p=813139&posted=1#post813139

dballesg
01-25-2009, 07:32 AM
Oh, boy! Men! Why are you addicted to "merging LW in one app"? Why does it matter for you? I can't see no reason in that. And moreover all of you want too much to be merged together... Just a simple rule: more complicated/integrated and you get more unstable and full of bugs. I'v never ever heard of high-end audio devices with perfect sound which components were assembled together in a single box made of cheap plastic and unknown devices.

Oh no, please, we are not going again to the pros & cons of integrated vs separated.

Has been explained like 10 (X) thousand times the benefits of it, and its pros and cons.

Do a search on the forums, recently was a thread where was discussed to death.

David

hrgiger
01-25-2009, 09:50 AM
Oh, boy! Men! Why are you addicted to "merging LW in one app"? Why does it matter for you? I can't see no reason in that. And moreover all of you want too much to be merged together... Just a simple rule: more complicated/integrated and you get more unstable and full of bugs.

It's actually the opposite. A consolidated program that utilizes the same core base, is easier to maintain and diagnose problems.

toby
01-25-2009, 05:26 PM
It's actually the opposite. A consolidated program that utilizes the same core base, is easier to maintain and diagnose problems.
It's one big program rather than 2 little ones, I'm sure there's advantages either way.

Lightwolf
01-25-2009, 05:38 PM
It's one big program rather than 2 little ones, I'm sure there's advantages either way.
Not quite.
It is one single core with many plugins as opposed to two cores with differing functionalities and many plugins ... some of which work on both cores, some of which don't.

Cheers,
Mike

jin choung
01-25-2009, 06:29 PM
Not quite.
It is one single core with many plugins as opposed to two cores with differing functionalities and many plugins ... some of which work on both cores, some of which don't.

Cheers,
Mike

ooooo

is this a result of insider info?

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

anyway, I don't know why anyone is still discussing the pros and cons... whatever it's gonna be, it probably already, to a large extent, IS.

Jin

Lightwolf
01-25-2009, 06:31 PM
ooooo

is this a result of insider info?

Lol... no. But that's all there is to it really if you break it down... or if you break down any 3D app.

Is an internal tool a plugin or not? If it's not a core component there is little difference.

Cheers,
Mike

UbiGuy
01-25-2009, 06:46 PM
mdesign...

I don't really want one application... What I want is advance deformation in lightwave. I need stack (or history) and all modeling tools available to work with... I need fast iteration to still competitive... That what I need! If Layout get all Modeling tool, I just think modeler will become obsolete...

For me, Hub is not the best reference in stability. I often get crash...

You have your opinion and I have mine, each of them come from different experience.

:)

erikals
01-25-2009, 06:48 PM
I still find it hilarious that we have to explain to people that it doesn't really have to change much from what we have now compared to a merged Layout/Modeler.

:D

I can honestly ONLY see positive things with a merge.

...one minus, less shortcuts ;)

toby
01-25-2009, 06:56 PM
Not quite.
It is one single core with many plugins as opposed to two cores with differing functionalities and many plugins ... some of which work on both cores, some of which don't.

Cheers,
Mike
Really? As it is, modeler tools don't have to be compatible with dynamics, rendering, IK, lighting, stuff like that, and there's no worldspace mode, wouldn't it be easier to develop modeling tools in that environment, for example.

hrgiger
01-25-2009, 07:09 PM
Really? As it is, modeler tools don't have to be compatible with dynamics, rendering, IK, lighting, stuff like that, and there's no worldspace mode, wouldn't it be easier to develop modeling tools in that environment, for example.

Well it would be nice if everyting in the program was animatable including modeling operations.

toby
01-25-2009, 08:46 PM
Well it would be nice if everyting in the program was animatable including modeling operations.
Sure but that's a different issue.

Keep in mind, you don't get any of that for free just by merging. Considering how long it's taking make cc subd compatible with all the tools (years?), I think animating them all would take a really long time. There's dozens of things in layout that are yet to be animated too.

toby
01-25-2009, 09:41 PM
Actually I think a complete re-write might be more practical than merging, if animating everything were the goal (which would be great)