PDA

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



Pages : [1] 2

jin choung
09-10-2008, 07:41 PM
...

then what would make it worthwhile for you?

for me, for a long time, i have been pushing for my vision of what i thought lw should be. but it's hit me in a big way that it simply might not be possible. for many reasons that i've talked about recently.

SO.

if lw does NOT merge modeler and layout....
if lw does NOT radically change what is inarguably a primitive and aging infrastructure....

WHAT WOULD STILL MAKE LW WORTHWHILE FOR YOU?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

for me personally, i see it almost as an insult that our PRIMITIVENESS DOES NOT BUY US MORE.

that we are more primitive than maya and xsi and each of our modules is more stripped down with less to worry about and yet, we lag behind in terms of responsiveness and raw poly pushing.

if we ARE going to be primitive, then let's GET SOMETHING FOR IT. in modeler, we don't have all the crap from layout. in layout, we don't have all the crap from modeler. SO LET'S DO SOMETHING WITH THAT!

i think the one thing that would allow me to be ok with the frankenstein hulk that lw has become is if it was:

RIDICULOUSLY FAST WITH A RIDICULOUSLY LARGE AMOUNT OF POLYS. that would give us a nice niche too if we could handle SIMPLY MORE than anyone else. people might end up simply "resorting" to lw because it really remains fast and interactive where others bog down - that for all the polys it can stuff into available memory, it will remain responsive and usable.

it may not be as elegant, it may not be as advanced, but it can simply handle more.

if we can't "go america", let's "go soviet". (probably not a good idea to use that sentence in advertising though).

also, this MIGHT be a more doable goal... just throw everything at speed and mass - might be comparatively easy to do compared to "teching up".

any other alternative visions?

jin

hrgiger
09-10-2008, 07:59 PM
Well I'm hoping LW10 is really something because I have to decide if I'm going to upgrade my other license of Lightwave 8.

Right now, I would like to see some big improvements coming in modeler. Let's get those UV tools that we've been waiting for with the ability to pin and unwrap interactively along with a good relax operator. Lets work on consolidating tools. I want an all in one bevel tool that rounds too and works in most cases. Let's fix CC's and make them efficient as possible. More interaction with modeling tools. I should be able to take a spline, lathe it, and then be able to adjust the spline and have the lathed polygons move with the spline. Same goes for spline cage modeling. Let's fix symmetry to work with all operations and that includes adding and deleting faces. Either that or give us the ability to clone meshes, and by that I mean all your clones update when you make changes to the original. Give us lattices and more deformation options.

But I have to agree Jin, I would really like a boost in the speed and handling of high count polygon scenes.

jin choung
09-10-2008, 08:04 PM
cool, yeah... that's the spirit.

so everything you mentioned hr doesn't require revolution or a completely redone infrastructure/codebase... all that stuff seems tremendously do-able.

jin

jasonwestmas
09-10-2008, 08:05 PM
In LW for me I feel like I'm painting a very large oil painting or sculpture . . .eventually I will get to that beautiful image with lots of subtle details and I always have lots of control. But is fine beautiful detailing always a good thing to start with? For things such as CA and special effects e.g. hair, water, fire, goop, cloth etc. I always feel like making something general, broad and primitive is a hard thing to do because my tools are so damn small. They are good tools and they provide infinite amount of detail but they seem to be geared toward only details and not the large broad strokes necessary to quickly block things in. So in other words it takes a long while to get to those details.

jameswillmott
09-10-2008, 08:19 PM
In LW for me I feel like I'm painting a very large oil painting or sculpture . . .eventually I will get to that beautiful image with lots of subtle details and I always have lots of control. But is fine beautiful detailing always a good thing to start with? For things such as CA and special effects e.g. hair, water, fire, goop, cloth etc. I always feel like making something general, broad and primitive is a hard thing to do because my tools are so damn small. They are good tools and they provide infinite amount of detail but they seem to be geared toward only details and not the large broad strokes necessary to quickly block things in. So in other words it takes a long while to get to those details.

That's really insightful, I feel the same way.

hrgiger
09-10-2008, 08:27 PM
cool, yeah... that's the spirit.

so everything you mentioned hr doesn't require revolution or a completely redone infrastructure/codebase... all that stuff seems tremendously do-able.

jin

Well, as far as the handling large polygon meshes, I think it would be cool for Newtek to come up with something revolutionary. Instead of relying on OGL, perhaps they should come up with their own proprietary system to allow us to work with, and just as importantly, render high polygon objects. Pixelogic has their own system and it's obviously working well for them.

Sensei
09-10-2008, 08:31 PM
I should be able to take a spline, lathe it, and then be able to adjust the spline and have the lathed polygons move with the spline. Same goes for spline cage modeling.

I hope not because nobody will buy EasySpline http://www.easyspline.com anymore.. ;)

Interactive Spline Lathe tool with parallel spline patching enabled video:
http://www2.trueart.pl/Products/Plug-Ins/EasySpline/Graphics/Movies/EasySpline_SplineLathe_1.mov

geothefaust
09-10-2008, 08:39 PM
Jin, I could NOT agree more with you. I would really like to see LW turn into a beast as far as poly pushing goes. Assuming that we can't get a new, "techy" version with all the sweet bells and whistles (or at least half of them, or some of them working half the time, lol).

I've been slowly compiling a list of things I want and some I need.

UV Edit tool request

Similar to Maya
____________________
Selecting by "shells" or parts
Sewing seams (by edge selection)
Moving and sewing seams
Select a seam and unfold a part
Aligning vertices by average U or V
Relax UVs centered on a poly, vertex or user location
Warping like Maya, a 9 point grid overlay, completely allows the mesh to be deformed within this grid, quite awesome
____________________

I want all tools to comply with global, local, normals, object, and mouse coordinates and constraints

I would like to see tools consolidated, no more bevel, smooth shift, super shift, multishift, etc. I want one shifting tool.

Anything that has to do with surfacing an object (texturing, displacement, normal maps, clip maps, etc) should all be in the same location

Previewing normal maps, displacement maps, color channel, etc, all in an OGL viewport (or like HR said, if they create a new revolutionary system)

***A history stack***

Animateable everything. This means, a bevel, a tweak of a vertex, so on and so forth
____________________

That's all I can think of for now, I know there is more kicking around in my noggin. But I am running low on energy at the moment. Also, sorry for the poor grammar. I am at work and in a big hurry.

Long story short, yeah. If it can't do some of those things (and I think they are reasonable) then at least give us a huge poly crunching beast, PLEASE!

Chris S. (Fez)
09-10-2008, 08:40 PM
Beta is ongoing and at the risk of breaking NDA Newtek is restoring my faith and many others with some dedicated bug squashing and insanely useful late developments. I am extremely pleased with where they are going. Joints are awesome.

But yeah, what Jin suggested. Sheer performance is a sure way to win me over.

hrgiger
09-10-2008, 09:04 PM
I hope not because nobody will buy EasySpline http://www.easyspline.com anymore.. ;)

Interactive Spline Lathe tool with parallel spline patching enabled video:
http://www2.trueart.pl/Products/Plug-Ins/EasySpline/Graphics/Movies/EasySpline_SplineLathe_1.mov

Sorry Sensei, I can't help it. Now that I've been using XSI, I'm spoiled.

wp_capozzi
09-10-2008, 09:33 PM
I have to agree with performance boosts. Also I would like to see deeper support for other software and plugins so things like Blender and Houdini can more easily be used with Lightwave, and things like Shave and a Haircut don't get closed out. Also I'd like hooks for python and other scripting, and rock solid operation all around.
One thing I really liked recently was the addition of RenderQ. Things that enhance or open up a better workflow are always a welcome asset. I feel just recently, there have been a lot of great things added to Lightwave, I commend the programmers on all of it. Not to complain, but I made a major upgrade path decision back at LW6 thinking it was going to have a complete overhaul back then, but it seemed more hit and miss through versions 6-7-8. The recent 9.x builds, especially 9.5 and up seems more like the direction I invested in. I'm quite happy with it so far.
One other thing I think is vitally important is detailed learning and reference material, maybe mixed with marketing and promotion. I don't know much about IKBooster, but I feel like it's something important that I have overlooked. Some of the other new features are kind of the same way. I like to experiment, but sometimes I just need to know something specific to get a job done.

-Bill C.

jin choung
09-10-2008, 09:38 PM
cool ideas....

but so that this thread might hope to be different than all the other lw10 threads, try to keep features in keeping with:

IF LW WILL NOT GET A REVOLUTIONARY OVERHAUL.... IF IT IS INCREMENTAL....

then, what would be those things that newtek could do with largely the same infrastructure that would keep you interested in lw.

jin

Cageman
09-10-2008, 09:56 PM
What people already have stated; incredible polypushing (both app and renderer). You can easily move around a single object that is over 1 mil polys in Layout, but if you have 1500 objects, not even bounding box will make it play smooth (i.e animate camera, look though it and hit play).

jin choung
09-10-2008, 10:13 PM
but if you have 1500 objects, not even bounding box will make it play smooth (i.e animate camera, look though it and hit play).

right! exactly. we should always be responsive and better than bounding box if at all possible. i'm hoping for something where people might really despise lw because it's not technologically competitive but they're dragged kicking and screaming there because it still WORKS when everybody else grinds to a halt.

again, if we're not as techy, we should take advantage of that and just do the low level poly pushing like a monster.

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

it is my fear that you have to get quite techy before you can push such huge amounts of polys. especially as it concerns things like deforming meshes....

i'm HOPING that's not the case.

that they can just make a concerted effort to really optimize and hone existing tech, leverage the more primitive architecture of lw and beat something like xsi "gigacore"...

jin

geothefaust
09-10-2008, 11:39 PM
I hope not because nobody will buy EasySpline http://www.easyspline.com anymore.. ;)

Interactive Spline Lathe tool with parallel spline patching enabled video:
http://www2.trueart.pl/Products/Plug-Ins/EasySpline/Graphics/Movies/EasySpline_SplineLathe_1.mov

Hehe. EasySpline does rule. IMHO, you should be working at NewTek and helping them on modeler tools!!


I think a history stack would help with this one though as well. Being able to rail extrude a circle for a pipe, then beveling it in hundreds of places for some details, then you realize that you missed something, or, you actually needed it to travel along a different path. Well, currently you're kind of screwed. But with a history stack you could just go tweak the spline you did the rail extrude from and, voila, done. XSI has this down pretty nicely.

I guess only time will tell. But, here's hoping it's more then what we expect. :)

Nemoid
09-11-2008, 02:06 AM
No sorry there's nothing NT can do with the current structure to keep Lw competitive in the market.

Even if Lw is morte TV/Small studio/solo user kind of market, what is needed is a modern app, because Lw clearly shows its age exactly from this POV.

We are in 2008, the age of apps like ZBrush, Mudbox, XSI, C4D and other apps which are at the same time modern and pushing out real innovation. boith in workflow and power.
Even Maya which still is the leader,within the movie industry and more, starts improving in ease of use, in different compartments (see 2009 feature movies)

What Lw is doing now is mainly surviving and providing what i'd call good enhancements onto its current toolset, especially in the rendering compartment, and IK ,and other areas.

But this will end into nothing so great after something like 1 year or less, without a modern core, because you have to allow features to actually grow
over time, and if you grow them over a modern core you can do better and integrate them more and more within the app and its workflow.

You cannot forever keep adding patches and enhancements into something that is SO old, clumsy and unflexible. It could be good in '90, but not now.

At a certain point,you have to be bold enough and rewrite the base structure of the ap. Integrate modeler/layout into a single environment. Keep whats good, drop whats bad and go ahead.

What i think, tho, from some little rumours i heard, is that 10 will be something different from what we have now.

jin choung
09-11-2008, 02:49 AM
What i think, tho, from some little rumours i heard, is that 10 will be something different from what we have now.

what rumors? all i've heard are desperate WISHES couched in, "i heard that...". : )

anyway, ok, your answer is fair. from your pov, there's nothing they can do short of addressing the aging infrastructure that will make you happy.

believe me, that's my ideal. and that's what i've always hoped for myself.

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

but just coming to grips with the possibility that it simply may not be possible.

and for as long as i could remember, i've compared lw to soviet military tech philosophy (against the "nato tech" of alias/autodesk).

nothing the soviets had in the height of the cold war could match american stuff in terms of technology - whether it's planes or tanks or nukes or even small arms.

but at the same time, that didn't make them any less "competitive".

american f-15s sported the absolute latest in avionics and electronics and radar etc etc... but they were little princesses that needed to be maintained and inspected to within an inch of their lives. that amount of technology ate a lot in terms of upkeep.

you even have to do a walk of the runways and make sure there's no scraps of stuff left around to get sucked in and damage the fans or the engines....

soviet jets on the other hand were rough and tumble and could takeoff and land on surfaces that american planes considered unfit for their donkeys.

they were less techy but paid back for that for being easier to maintain... kind of fits well with the whole lw "get it done" campaign. no pretention, no claims of tech superiority... but we exchange the advantages of a microchipped japanese car for a 1960s era muscle car engine that you could take apart with tools you have in your kitchen cubbard.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

so i'm just coming to grips with stuff in terms of competition and war - our product against others:

you don't go strength for strength. in terms of technology, newtek CAN'T beat autodesk or avid. there's just not the money (which buys time and manpower) for that. trying to take them on there might be an impossible battle to win.

so if you can't claim technology and sophistication, maybe you can leverage simplicity and primitiveness.

for me, as long as there is an appropriate trade-off, and a few things that lw can claim over the surging free competition, it might stay feisty yet.

jin

Matt
09-11-2008, 03:10 AM
Rock solid stability

Speed, rendering and working

Consolidation / cleaning up of existing tools

Full Interactive Preview Rendering (Nodes, HV the lot) Forget VIPER, either allow FPrime to work with all, or do your own FPrime beater

BUT ...

LW10 NEEDS to be a massive step up IMO.

mav3rick
09-11-2008, 03:13 AM
I hope not because nobody will buy EasySpline http://www.easyspline.com anymore.. ;)

Interactive Spline Lathe tool with parallel spline patching enabled video:
http://www2.trueart.pl/Products/Plug-Ins/EasySpline/Graphics/Movies/EasySpline_SplineLathe_1.mov

i bought it ;)

parm
09-11-2008, 03:24 AM
I'd be fairly happy to upgrade if only:

All modelling tools were fully interactive and tidied up.

Native instancing.

Huge poly handling capablities.

Native real-time lighting and texture preview, for layout and modeler.


I hope not because nobody will buy EasySpline http://www.easyspline.com anymore.. ;)

Interactive Spline Lathe tool with parallel spline patching enabled video:
http://www2.trueart.pl/Products/Plug-Ins/EasySpline/Graphics/Movies/EasySpline_SplineLathe_1.mov

Until then. Hows the Mac UB version coming along? :)

Darth Mole
09-11-2008, 04:01 AM
For me, if you could refine/rationalise the toolset, ensure it was 99.99% bug-free and wrap it all up in a much slicker interface (I like the way Adobe, Luxology, and even Maxon are moving), then at least it would feel like it was up there with the more modern apps.

LW is awesome but it wears its heritage too much on its sleeve. Time for a full refresh.

So… Q: What's your favourite-looking application?

Lightwolf
09-11-2008, 04:06 AM
So… Q: What's your favourite-looking application?
Notepad :D No frills and a huge workspace.

Cheers,
Mike

Nemoid
09-11-2008, 04:21 AM
you don't go strength for strength. in terms of technology, newtek CAN'T beat autodesk or avid. there's just not the money (which buys time and manpower) for that. trying to take them on there might be an impossible battle to win.

so if you can't claim technology and sophistication, maybe you can leverage simplicity and primitiveness.

for me, as long as there is an appropriate trade-off, and a few things that lw can claim over the surging free competition, it might stay feisty yet.

jin

I didn't say NT have to beat Autodesk or Softimage or Maxon.
I do know this is impossile.

But they HAVE to modernize the app however.
This also wil bring a better and faster catch up with other packages.

I mean : You can survive for a long time and that's actually what they did since 6.0 till now.

I personally think it is enough, tho.

They served the users quite well, during these years, yet adding patches, but indeed many users now use also other packages.This means something for sure!

And things are way different from the past, in which Lw was into a good position in the market.

Lw could survive even more,some more year for sure but untill a cernain point.

Lw survived also because it actually has strong points.
I'm not here saying all must be changed.

Modelling workflow can be streamlined alot, but it isn't exactly bad even compared to Modo or other packages
Rendering, is VERY good either - policy of rendernodes, big selling point.
even nodal shading is good
f prime : was a good selling point either.

But other areas suffer greatly from separation between modeler /layout and core being not modern, plugins interfering each other, and so on.
You see, basic problems brought from an old core and app organization and structure.

But part of current Lw workflow,and a similar toolset with the advantages of a modern core , more flexibility and consistency, integration and better exploitment of multithreading , cpu and gpu power, IMO would lead to something very very - very cool, for the current market.

so that's the way to go. :)

Program a new core, put part of existing toolset there giving to it a new life, and rewrite what's needed to complete the full app.
Requires some time, but this could be made for sure , or even, they could have made this in parallel pipeline too.

COBRASoft
09-11-2008, 04:50 AM
I hope the redesign of the website is the start of this new development. Perhaps LW10 will be in the same style and colors, that would be nice, no?

Rewriting such a program from scratch requires a lot of time (1 or 2 years I guess). During that time you almost have no income, so it is very hard to accomplish. I guess they would need external money to get this job done or some crazy people like Viktor from LWCad. LW10 would be so much better if they would just throw the bad tools out of modeler and implement some 3rd party plug-ins (FPrime, LWCad, TrueArt, HDInstance, 3D Goat). Get those developers into the main development team, let their minds work together and I'm sure we'll have a killing app again, along with a fast render.

JBT27
09-11-2008, 05:13 AM
Jin's original post works for me.....

If NT wheel's out 10 to a startled and drooling userbase with it's insanely grand new features and workflow, I will be positively gobsmacked.....I don't think that's on the cards. Love to be wrong, and maybe there is a secret hive of activity working away within NT finalising 10 as we write, and a 10 that we will barely recognise as LW. It's just that would be very out of keeping with NT as we know it.....so far.

I want raw horsepower, that massive poly handling ability, I want the redundancy stripped out and if I need any major new feature, it would be a render managment system to complement the rendering inprovements.

A consolidated, turbo-charged LW, with the outstanding stuff finished and stabilised (UVs for one) but largely with what it has now, would provide me enough incentive to upgrade our two licenses.

Julian.

starbase1
09-11-2008, 05:15 AM
The William Vaughan videos have really made me understand what a small part of the toolset I know how to use! So I think that says something about the proliferation of similar tools.

I agree therefore definitely with those who want simplification of the interface, and combining tools with similar functions would be a great way to go on this.

(And if they do this, then let WV design the interface! If he can make things as clear as he does in the videos for existing tools, ease of use would go through the roof!).

Part of the strength of the vids is they point me at tools I had never tried, often because I thought I already knew which tool was for the function I needed!

Even as an amateur I seem to run into limits a lot more than I used too, limits on numbers of polygons, limits on texture sizes. Push those back please!

I would like to say though, that I have been impressed with the direction shown in recent point releases, there has been a lot of good stuff arrive. And the problem with the likes of us telling Newtek where to go is that we don't have any real idea of the effort required for the features we want. So I'm very much inclined to learn the tools I have yet to try, and trust their judgement.

Nick

JBT27
09-11-2008, 05:16 AM
I hope the redesign of the website is the start of this new development. Perhaps LW10 will be in the same style and colors, that would be nice, no?

Rewriting such a program from scratch requires a lot of time (1 or 2 years I guess). During that time you almost have no income, so it is very hard to accomplish. I guess they would need external money to get this job done or some crazy people like Viktor from LWCad. LW10 would be so much better if they would just throw the bad tools out of modeler and implement some 3rd party plug-ins (FPrime, LWCad, TrueArt, HDInstance, 3D Goat). Get those developers into the main development team, let their minds work together and I'm sure we'll have a killing app again, along with a fast render.

I think Modo was more than 1 or 2 years in development.....that's a 'modern' app with a new core, but appallingly flawed in some areas, lacking in others, and seemingly abandoned in yet others.

If that's what a new app means, I'll take a turbo-charged Russian tank division with infantry support any day.....

Julian.

pumeco
09-11-2008, 05:16 AM
1 - Sort out the modelling tools so that each tool works with another without having to consider what seems to be like 101 different curve or polygon types. There's stuff Viktor, Sensei, and Steve can't do because of stupid limitations in the SDK - nothing more.

2 - Sort out the camera in Layout so that we can use the navigation buttons while actually looking through the camera.

3 - Either open-up the SDK more so that FPrime can work with everything, or build your own NewTek version that actually works with everything and so that the perspective view in Modeler can be set to a live FPrime style renderer for preview as we model (that would be sooooooooo amazing).

Without number numbers 1 and 3 inparticular, I honestly believe LightWave may be in danger of demise no matter how good it is and no matter how much we love it.

NewTek needs to understand that loyalty has a limit; remember Commodore? Went from having the best selling 8BIT and 16BIT on the market to having nothing at all (useless marketing and not listening to their customers). Let's not have NewTek doing a 'Commodore' on us and the scary thing is, that's exacly the way it's going (to an extent) - or at least that's the impression I get.

I only hope that NewTek are listenening to what WE want and deliver it in version 10. If they don't, more will dump LightWave, and when others see the amount of people leaving - they'll certainly not be taking it on either.

If there's no sparkling-new modern core in version 10, ah well.

ben martin
09-11-2008, 05:36 AM
What can I say?
Layout/Modeler Integration.
Fast and less bogus Dynamics, Particles, Hypervoxels.
New CA approach.

I dunno... it seems that this is beating the dead horse kind of stuff.
I said it before and I say it again... I run a team of 5 LW artists.
The 9 cycle is the last chance I give to NT to prove me wrong.

I'm looking to other software solutions; right now I can tell you that (excluding the render engine and modeler) I like Blender over Lightwave (generally speaking).

I'm expecting to see a real revolution and change of direction to LW10.
If that does not happen, it's time to sail my team to other harbors.
I'm absolutely tired of fighting Lightwave and all the problems it creates to me in production at a daily base.

The last one is creepy, FiberFX works with a certain character, but if we try to apply FFX to the same character already rigged, FFX simply does not show any GL preview and do not render.
We already tried to figure out what it's wrong, lost time rechecking the mesh, textures and rig.
By doing all this, a day goes out of the window and we still have no clues about what is wrong.

Other one:
Rigs in the Schematic view, some bones are sending (drawn) to the infinite… lines are drawn till the infinite and the bones are somewhere (lost) out there.
You know… this is the kind of stuff that makes anyone to lose patience over a product.

I'm tired… soooo tired! :sleeping:

Nemoid
09-11-2008, 05:51 AM
I hope the redesign of the website is the start of this new development. Perhaps LW10 will be in the same style and colors, that would be nice, no?

Rewriting such a program from scratch requires a lot of time (1 or 2 years I guess). During that time you almost have no income, so it is very hard to accomplish. I guess they would need external money to get this job done or some crazy people like Viktor from LWCad. LW10 would be so much better if they would just throw the bad tools out of modeler and implement some 3rd party plug-ins (FPrime, LWCad, TrueArt, HDInstance, 3D Goat). Get those developers into the main development team, let their minds work together and I'm sure we'll have a killing app again, along with a fast render.

No no I think its a great effort, but totally possible programming wise.
It's sufficient that the new tools you code for 9.xx cycle, can be put into the new core of 10.

For example (little speculation in here) since Nt has yet separated some things, like mesh edit and rendering engine from the main Lw core (this also means they partially changed some part of the core to make it work better), if the process has be mantained,and continued in recent years, for all the needed areas,they could easily put at least part of current toolset, and the new tools they are coding for 9.5 now, into a new 10 core exploiting the new tools completely and making them work into a better integrated way.

practical example : they code new IK solver, and new joints. they initially put them in 9.5 to improve current Lw toolset.
Then, take those and put them into the new, integrated core and develop em further.

The core rules tool behaviour. Not the opposite. same tools, different cores ,better behaviour in new core.

With this method, even if i agree it involves lots of extra work, and isn't exactly as linear as i have explained , you don't do a complete double work.

You work for 10, while you have 9.xx in the market however. :)

Maxx
09-11-2008, 06:02 AM
Rewriting such a program from scratch requires a lot of time (1 or 2 years I guess). During that time you almost have no income, so it is very hard to accomplish.

You mean like the 3 years that NT has been working on 9.x without charging for an incremental update? ;)

What would make me buy LW10 if it's not a complete overhaul? UV tools, tool consolidation (especially in Modeler), more responsive OGL in Modeler and Layout, the ability to preview Nodes in OpenGL, and a Viper update. Although I'd love to see a bucket renderer with micro-poly displacement, I don't see it happening. It just seems to me that NT would have to scrap all the work that's been done since 9.0 on the renderer already. I could be wrong, and I do hope that I am.

Pavlov
09-11-2008, 07:02 AM
Answering to initial question: imho there's no other route than merging modules and rethink architecture. What i'd like to see IF this doesnt happen, is at least a complete detaching of render engine.. LW's one is now really excellent anc complete.... but other ones are way ahead, that's it.
Given market's changes, with immense software getting cheap (XSI, Maya, Houdini), given the must of interoperability, given the explosion of render engines (some of which are not accessible from LW ONLY, like Vray, MR, Finalrender), i think it's pretty clear what it's best to do to stay on the road.
If this doesnt happen, we'll love LW anyway... a swiss-knife is always useful ;)

Paolo

Sensei
09-11-2008, 07:34 AM
Until then. Hows the Mac UB version coming along? :)

EasySpline works great on Mac with Intel since more than half year (I bought such machine just to compile plug-ins)! Even spline & point highlighting feature works! So the same as other TrueArt plug-ins for MacUB..

Sensei
09-11-2008, 07:42 AM
1 - Sort out the modelling tools so that each tool works with another without having to consider what seems to be like 101 different curve or polygon types. There's stuff Viktor, Sensei, and Steve can't do because of stupid limitations in the SDK - nothing more.

It's all up to just this single request.. https://secure.newtek.com/FogBugz/default.asp?9887_OUSZUASC



2 - Sort out the camera in Layout so that we can use the navigation buttons while actually looking through the camera.

Did you try TrueArt's CameraMan?

manholoz
09-11-2008, 07:47 AM
I went yesterday to a Siemens CAD/CAM/CAE/etc, and that sort of modeling for hard body surfaces is nothing short of amazing.

I KNOW they showed high-end software used to design airplaines and stuff, but Lightwave was used to design a motorcycle, right?

IMHO, modeling tools like that in Layout is the sort of things Lightwave needs for grabbing the innovation crown.
That would make the question of upgrading to v.10 a necessity.

http://www.plm.automation.siemens.com/legacy/replays/synchronous/demonstrations/Demonstration%201%20-%201024x576.wmv
http://www.plm.automation.siemens.com/legacy/replays/synchronous/demonstrations/Demonstration%202%20-%201024x576.wmv
http://www.plm.automation.siemens.com/legacy/replays/synchronous/demonstrations/Demonstration%203%20-%201024x576.wmv
http://www.plm.automation.siemens.com/legacy/replays/synchronous/demonstrations/Demonstration%204%20-%201024x576.wmv

praa
09-11-2008, 07:48 AM
let's forget about bucket rendering for a minute (vray has abandonned it somewhat to go back to brute memory management since we all have enough ram in 64 bit it seems)

i just want ONE BUTTON SLICED UP NETWORK RENDERING AND MANAGEMENT OF A SINGLE HIREZ IMAGE ACROSS THE NETWORK

that's all for now :)

mav3rick
09-11-2008, 08:08 AM
ok guys after all this threads talking about lw 10 i have to ask you how much of time you would like newtek to take until lw 10 ships? be rational all those wishes are fine but you just cant make all this in year or so.... looking luxology modo that was done "ground up" they are still much or less on same level like with modo 201.... and i am talking about painting and modeling not about those little stuff like fur ..... anyway takin lw 10 to the level you all expect if all goes smooth and newtek get some extra coders in gang will take at least 1.5 up to 2 years to finish IMHO

Nicolas Jordan
09-11-2008, 08:41 AM
Rock solid stability

Consolidation / cleaning up of existing tools


In my opinion cleaning up of existing tools and finishing of partially implemented tools are really needed badly in Lightwave if it is to look and feel professional with Lightwave 10 and beyond. If this isn't doen soon they may have a mess that will be very hard to clean up.

jburford
09-11-2008, 08:42 AM
The last one is creepy, FiberFX works with a certain character, but if we try to apply FFX to the same character already rigged, FFX simply does not show any GL preview and do not render.
We already tried to figure out what it's wrong, lost time rechecking the mesh, textures and rig.
By doing all this, a day goes out of the window and we still have no clues about what is wrong.


:sleeping:

have you sent in bug reports with content on this, so that NT can look at the problem?

Thomas M.
09-11-2008, 09:01 AM
What if, what if? What if it's raining tomorrow, what then? What if the TV program sucks tonight?

Nemoid
09-11-2008, 10:07 AM
If Nt didn't make something like a parallel development of Lw 10 , at least during 9.xx cycle , Lw 10 will never be modern app.

If so, they'll keep patching it with new stuff as they always made., Will be useful however as it is now, but not so competitive within the current market, as ithappens to be now too.

This being said, 9.5 is good , and Lw is still into a good place especially in TV market, and rendering for movies. :thumbsup:

ben martin
09-11-2008, 10:14 AM
have you sent in bug reports with content on this, so that NT can look at the problem?
Working on it... anyway our hope was that something was wrong and could be fixed at our end... unfortunately we couldn't find anything.
So, yes, a bug report is being prepared but the solutions won't come in time anyway, we have to use SasLite to finish this one... without all the goodies needed.

faulknermano
09-11-2008, 10:29 AM
...

then what would make it worthwhile for you?



ok i'll bite..

to me it's quite simple that i boil it down to these things:

1. usage speed
2. scene management
3. scripting


-usage speed refers to general speed when manoevering views (navigation - ex1: LW uses pivot points to center on an item instead of its actual mesh; ex2: employ viewport tracking -> move view perpendicular to camera view direction ), manoevering objects (manipulation / deformation; ex1: slow performance on relatively low poly objects compared to other apps; ex2: employ camera-coordinate transformations similar to IKBoost), item selection, dynamic update (or manual update options for other tasks rather than dynamics), selective scene loading, multi-threading of computationally-expensive tasks like deformation and dynamics.

-scene management refers to how we manage all items; how plugins related to items and plugins related to scenes should have their parameters more accessible and their relationship to the item more apparent (ex: an unified interface); how we change settings for items (ex: properties like volumetric lights and their corresponding settings cannot be set en masse); consolidating node editor interface into one, yet spanning all existing architectures.

-scripting refers to lscript - there havent been any real updates in this front.

---

as a side note i am into a small CA project and with the new LW animation and rigging tools, i was tempted to try it in LW instead. i 'fiddled' around with it, but i determined that there are some issues that i think needs to be settled before i can even consider it. note this is obviously my preferences and is here only for the benefit of those who see it as a benefit; if i seem to be too demanding or picky please pay me no mind. but believe me, there are more picky CA people out there. i'm really more of a spartan kind of rigger and animator ;) )

a basic straightforward list what i need / really want to rig and animate, which LW does not have:
1. snap tools for joints / bones and other transforms. should be able to snap to grid and points (at least).
2. joint orientation manipulation
3. unified system for set driven key and expressions and nodes
4. camera-coordinate system of viewport navigation, and item manipulation
5. paint weights; other weight manipulation (like mirroring weights or copying weights)
6. _dependable_ constraints (point, aim, parent, orient, and geometry constraints are my bread and butter) whose interface is unified along with the rest (e.g. unified nodal interface)
7. deformation speed.
8. timeline time-dragger. (pressing a hotkey will shift control to the timeline's time removing the necessity to move the mouse over the timeline to scrub)
9. characters sets system.

this is my basic list. it's nothing really fancy. i'm not really asking for super-duper deformations types, and i know of many ways to work around animation problems. but most of these things are workflow issues, that when added up, makes me switch over to another app instead of LW.

just my cent.

cagey5
09-11-2008, 10:33 AM
What if, what if? What if it's raining tomorrow, what then? What if the TV program sucks tonight?

:agree: It's all a bunch of navel gazing.

JeffrySG
09-11-2008, 10:53 AM
I think it's pretty clear to NewTek and Jay that LW really needs to change and get updated for v10. I'm pretty sure they know what they would love to have v10 be, but they also have to think about how many resources they have, like people and money, time, etc.

I know that I typically have expectations on what a REAL major update would have and I'm thinking that v10 has to be really really big. That being said I wouldn't be surprised if it is not EVERYTHING we want it to be, but rather the first stages of what we are hoping for.

I'd love to see Modeler and Layout integrated, Modeler get a re-write / overhaul, instancing, and may of the other things that people have asked for.

If v10 is not all of the big major things that people have been looking for it will still be a good package for me but I'd really see the death of the product looming in the future. I think NT is aware of why people are switching apps and/or not using LW anymore and I think they've done a great job on the 9.x cycle to keep everyone pretty happy with some kick *** point updates. But now they have the real work ahead.

I really am curious to see what it will end up like. I can only hope that it will be a great update. And I don't mind waiting much longer than a typical point update and spending a lot more for that update if it really is a brand new product. Time will tell.

cresshead
09-11-2008, 11:15 AM
...

then what would make it worthwhile for you?



jin

here's my list...disagree at your leisure:D

modeler:-
clean up the tool list there should be no need for 'additional' in modeler unless YOU add a tool via a plugin from flay etc...

bin the 10 move tool varients and make 1 move tool to rule them all...then follow the same idea through the whole toolsset for bandsaw, bandsaw pro bandglue etc....THIN down the NUMBER of tools listed...reading and re reading the list is just plain annoying sometimes.

in additional have options to list via name [for new plugins, scripts]

fix the viewport so it doesn't break on intel video chipsets, nvidia, ati...it SHOULD always work no matter the graphics card..slower yes but WORK
it must without drawing errors.

give me the OPTION to use icons..i'm quite bored with text...re reading the same 'book' to find a tool is time consuming that's why icons are faster to find....this could diminish if the tools list gets thinned out and re-organised....currently it's a mess compared to lightwave 7.5.

ADD brush based move, inflate and deflate and smooth tools to mimic how you
reform/deform/mould a mesh like in zbrush...even the low poly model you may start with in zbrush can be QUICKLY edited this way...going back to lightwave and selecting polys...move...drop selection...new selection..move
is just awful for tweeking a character...i'm NOT repeat NOT asking for lightwave to become a sculpting app but BRUSH based modification is just so darn cool i can't live without it...i'd sooner take a base model to zbrush JUST to tweek it...lightwave should really be able to do this NOW.

not high uber poly sculpting ...just to make sure you know!

layout:-
let me think...i'll come back to that one!:thumbsup:


employ the 3d coat guy for a month and ask him to make the brush tools for lightwave modeler...

Nemoid
09-11-2008, 11:35 AM
mmm you can do a bit of what u say at last with magnet or dragnet tools, even if, i agree totally its not the best way and that ZB is way better with the use of a simple brush with size , focus and power parameters.

cresshead
09-11-2008, 11:58 AM
mmm you can do a bit of what u say at last with magnet or dragnet tools, even if, i agree totally its not the best way and that ZB is way better with the use of a simple brush with size , focus and power parameters.

to put it bluntly the move tool should have options for polys, points, edges and brush in brush mode you shoud be able to drag[move] or normal move pull or push and a relax [smooth]....all editable on the fly with the alt, shift and [ and ] keys or something user definable...no need to touch the u.i....just edit:thumbsup:

i'm not looking for ''sculpting in lightwave'' but simply extending the move tool's capabilites

Nemoid
09-11-2008, 12:05 PM
hehe agree totally and soft selection could fit very well in that one either :thumbsup:

JeffrySG
09-11-2008, 02:01 PM
I went yesterday to a Siemens CAD/CAM/CAE/etc, and that sort of modeling for hard body surfaces is nothing short of amazing.

I KNOW they showed high-end software used to design airplaines and stuff, but Lightwave was used to design a motorcycle, right?

IMHO, modeling tools like that in Layout is the sort of things Lightwave needs for grabbing the innovation crown.
That would make the question of upgrading to v.10 a necessity.

http://www.plm.automation.siemens.com/legacy/replays/synchronous/demonstrations/Demonstration%201%20-%201024x576.wmv
http://www.plm.automation.siemens.com/legacy/replays/synchronous/demonstrations/Demonstration%202%20-%201024x576.wmv
http://www.plm.automation.siemens.com/legacy/replays/synchronous/demonstrations/Demonstration%203%20-%201024x576.wmv
http://www.plm.automation.siemens.com/legacy/replays/synchronous/demonstrations/Demonstration%204%20-%201024x576.wmv

Those videos were incredible! Do you know exactly what Siemens software that was for? The CAD software that I use doesn't even come close to that!

gristle
09-11-2008, 03:08 PM
Those videos were incredible! Do you know exactly what Siemens software that was for? The CAD software that I use doesn't even come close to that!

Think it was NX?

parm
09-11-2008, 03:45 PM
ADD brush based move, inflate and deflate and smooth tools to mimic how you
reform/deform/mould a mesh like in zbrush...even the low poly model you may start with in zbrush can be QUICKLY edited this way...going back to lightwave and selecting polys...move...drop selection...new selection..move
is just awful for tweeking a character...i'm NOT repeat NOT asking for lightwave to become a sculpting app but BRUSH based modification is just so darn cool i can't live without it...i'd sooner take a base model to zbrush JUST to tweek it...lightwave should really be able to do this NOW.

Really yes! That is just the modelling experience par excellence. And for a brief blissful period,( until I got my intel Mac pro), I was taking meshes into ZBrush 2 for tweeking. Roll on ZB3 for the Mac.

Plus, The way ZBrush handles modelling with symmetry is definately something to look towards.

parm
09-11-2008, 03:59 PM
here's my list...disagree at your leisure:D

not high uber poly sculpting ...just to make sure you know!

Uber High Poly capabilities are a must, imv.

And it wouldn't hurt to have a few well chosen, brush based mesh deforming tools while we're at it.

JeffrySG
09-11-2008, 04:13 PM
Think it was NX?

I think you're correct, NX 6.

thx

jin choung
09-11-2008, 04:17 PM
Those videos were incredible! Do you know exactly what Siemens software that was for? The CAD software that I use doesn't even come close to that!

oh geez, those videos WERE incredible.

and SAFELY SAFELY SAFELY beyond the reach of lw!

we don't even have nurbs surfaces! those things are nurbs and/or parametric solids.

freakin' awesome. never ever ever saw anything in cad that made me desire it or thought it would actually save time in design but dang, the stuff shown in that video is mindblowing.

arbitrary changes that have a bidirectional propagation in the "history stack" or whatever it is they're using is just amazing.

yeah, if this thread is about a worst case scenario regarding technology, these features are waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay outside that scenario.

jin

Sensei
09-11-2008, 04:22 PM
Those videos were incredible! Do you know exactly what Siemens software that was for? The CAD software that I use doesn't even come close to that!

EasyMesh http://easymesh.trueart.pl is close to that.. Context sensitive action depending what is below mouse pointer. But 3rd party plug-in is limited in number of combinations that can be used. I have requested NewTek https://secure.newtek.com/FogBugz/default.asp?9689_AXDRRUFB to add other key-events, mouse-events and qualifiers. This feature request would allow putting more functionality at the same time without forcing user to change settings in Numeric Window..

toonafish
09-11-2008, 04:26 PM
...and maybe Layout will have a decent undo in LW 10 :hey:

manholoz
09-11-2008, 04:41 PM
Those videos were incredible! Do you know exactly what Siemens software that was for? The CAD software that I use doesn't even come close to that!

The presentation was of SolidEdge and NX.

adamredwoods
09-11-2008, 04:46 PM
Instancing.
Faster dynamics and more interoperability.

jin choung
09-11-2008, 05:05 PM
Instancing.
Faster dynamics and more interoperability.

instancing has come up several times already here but i'd like to clarify: in what? in modeler?

you can't have instances at all without a notion of an "OBJECT" and there is no such notion in modeler (other than of course the file... layers can be interpreted as objects in layout).

this seems like one of those things that a lot of people go to integrated or modern apps for.

jin

Sensei
09-11-2008, 05:18 PM
Instancing in Modeler should be like VirtualMirror (see video if you have not seen it, made by Proton ftp://ftp.newtek.com/pub/LightWave/Tutorials/Vidz/Vmirror.mov) but built-in version should have ability to select virtual polygons as normal polygons (other side automatically selected and highlighted). It should also have user definable axis and in extended version even angles. f.e. you have just 25%, 90 degrees of sphere, enable instancing and it's like all-the-time working real-time lathe and you have full sphere..

adamredwoods
09-11-2008, 05:18 PM
instancing has come up several times already here but i'd like to clarify: in what? in modeler?

you can't have instances at all without a notion of an "OBJECT" and there is no such notion in modeler (other than of course the file... layers can be interpreted as objects in layout).

this seems like one of those things that a lot of people go to integrated or modern apps for.

jin

Instancing in renders and particles, without having to add 500 objects.
that many objects makes it a bit slower to parse through the object list when you are say, rigging.

geothefaust
09-11-2008, 06:16 PM
One would hope that for proper instancing, the two (modeler & layout) will be merged. Otherwise it would feel tacked on, more frankenstein.

Frankly, I can't imagine LW10 not being a unified application, in the vein of all other applications. Otherwise functionality might as well be stuck in the early 90s.

hrgiger
09-11-2008, 06:27 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.

JeffrySG
09-11-2008, 07:24 PM
instancing has come up several times already here but i'd like to clarify: in what? in modeler?

you can't have instances at all without a notion of an "OBJECT" and there is no such notion in modeler (other than of course the file... layers can be interpreted as objects in layout).

this seems like one of those things that a lot of people go to integrated or modern apps for.

jin

Yes, there must must must be actual 'objects' in the new integrated LW. The fact that there were not objects had me baffled when I started using LW.

It would be great to build a light fixture with an actual light in it and then instance it to use in a scene.

Lewis
09-12-2008, 01:14 AM
you want impressive CAD videos :) :)?

Here it is some more :D

http://www2.spaceclaim.com/stream/video.aspx?v=mfgdemo.flv

http://www.spaceclaim.com/Resources/SpaceClaim-Videos/SpaceClaim-Demo.aspx

Nemoid
09-12-2008, 02:48 AM
yup, notion of object is required for sure!

instancing is useful both in modelling and animation. since could be used toi free memory for the app and render faster both for stills and for animations.

by the way : HD instance is very very good as well. it works and does whats required.

Buts an external plugin with all the drawbacks this can mean so not exactly the same thing of a built-in system.

while i am here i'd ask also for true micropoligon displacement in rendering :newtek:

cresshead
09-12-2008, 05:20 AM
you want impressive CAD videos :) :)?

Here it is some more :D

http://www2.spaceclaim.com/stream/video.aspx?v=mfgdemo.flv

http://www.spaceclaim.com/Resources/SpaceClaim-Videos/SpaceClaim-Demo.aspx

while we're at it delcam's power shape

http://www.powershape.com/

-EsHrA-
09-12-2008, 10:13 AM
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.

special.. as in the updated gi and.. uhm..


mlon

Stooch
09-12-2008, 10:41 AM
lol at the doomsday sayers. lets just say maya takes the cake for convoluted workflow and hidden gotchas. the grass is always greener on the other side i guess. but hey i agree LW is far behind regardless how sorry maya gets.

cresshead
09-12-2008, 12:17 PM
modeler
1.a history stack,
2.viewport transform/rotate etc gizmo's
3.brush based mesh editing
4.tidy up the tools
5.ffd latiice
6.objects in modeler
7.instancing

layout>
1.micro polygon displacements
2.bucket renderer
3.ffd lattice
4.advance fur/hair
5.instancing

lightwave> video tutorials on ALL the new features in enough depth that everyone gets to understand and use them without blindly going around trying to discover 'how to'

that for me would be a lightwave 10 that i'd upgrade to.

dwburman
09-12-2008, 12:42 PM
I remember NT stating that development of the next gen of the app would be taking place at the same time as maintenance of the current gen. The new lighting API and other structural changes are evidence that they are moving in that direction.

Of course, I'm like most of you guys with no inside info on what 10 is going to look like when it's done.

geothefaust
09-12-2008, 12:46 PM
Cress, throw in the thought of a single, unified application, and we have a deal. :D

Andyjaggy
09-12-2008, 12:55 PM
Thanks for starting this thread Jin.

I'm with you. Sheer poly pushing power. I've been saying for a long time I don't necessarily care about all the fancy stuff. The workflow and tools in modo are nice, but give me the ability to throw around huge models (and render them) without any slowdown. That alone would get me to open up my wallet for LW.

After that we can worry about tool consolidation. Some new tools, like edge and point slide, uv unwrapping, cplane etc...... things we pretty much have allready in free 3rd party plugins.

Modeler has allready seemed like kind of a primitive raw point and poly pushing type modeler and I'm fine with keeping it that way. I don't feel like it needs to be revolutionized but merely sped up about 100X.

Edit: Oh that and render instances and I would be really happy.

Andyjaggy
09-12-2008, 12:58 PM
That said I would still like a unified application.

But given the choice between a unified application that is still slow like we have today and can't handle larger objects, and a split app that will let me throw around 10 million poly objects I'll take the later.

starbase1
09-12-2008, 01:14 PM
OK, so what is a bucket renderer, and why should I care?

Sensei
09-12-2008, 01:25 PM
OK, so what is a bucket renderer, and why should I care?

Something that will render regardless of memory that you have in your computer or whether you have 32 bit or 64 bit..
http://virtualrender.trueart.eu
Integrated bucket renderer don't generate final geometry (like f.e. freezing sub-patches) until it's 100% sure these data will be used and visible in camera..

cresshead
09-12-2008, 01:32 PM
OK, so what is a bucket renderer, and why should I care?

a bucket renderer like brazil, mental ray, vray, final render can have HUGE scenes with millions and billions of polygons in the scene..the renderer just need the ram to work on the current bucket and not the whole image and eack bucket can be assigned to a core or a pc for distributed rendereing on a single image with a network of computers all workingn on 1 image.

http://cebas.com/products/products.php?UD=10-7888-33-788&PID=17

What is Bucket rendering?
A lot of confusion is going on with the term "Bucket Rendering" many users think that this term describes a special rendering method or a special algorithm how images are rendered. Some developers have (mis-)use the term to explain why their rendering system creates better images. Bucket Rendering is nothing more than a description of the way that a frame buffer or image is subdivided. The well known scanline rendering method for example, uses "scanlines" to render an image. Single or multiple scanlines of the image may be rendered in one go. Also, scanlines may be split amongst multiple CPUs for multi processor computers. This is what 3ds max's renderer usually does. In contrast to scanlines, Buckets are not "lines", they are rectangular (usually quadratic e.g. 32x32, 64x64 pixels) areas of the image to be rendered. Buckets have some advantages over scanlines when load balancing and network distribution is involved. finalRender's raytracer fully supports bucket rendering and for future versions of finalRender you can expect to see distributed network rendering at its best.

Andyjaggy
09-12-2008, 01:35 PM
I wonder how much of a challenge it would be to turn LW into a bucket renderer. It's probably a monumental task I would imagine.

cresshead
09-12-2008, 01:44 PM
I wonder how much of a challenge it would be to turn LW into a bucket renderer. It's probably a monumental task I would imagine.



that would depend in what they created and what hooks they put into the development the renderer had during the 9.0 to 9.5 development cycle..

during that time there were many threads created on adding a bucket renderer in that dev cycle...now they may have the nuts and bolts in there already but it failed to make the 9.5 release...who knows!...oh yeah newtek know!:)

Lewis
09-12-2008, 01:56 PM
Mark Granger knows :D :D

JeffrySG
09-12-2008, 02:17 PM
And I'm hoping for true ability to create a render queue, and suspend a render in the middle of a frame, quit and shut down and restart, and continue at a later point.

I'd like the ability to set up X number of stills (or animations) to render at night, but not necessarily have them be part of a time line. They could be from different scenes or the same scene, from the same camera or different camera, etc.

Set up a camera view, and essentially save it as a 'suspended' render file, maybe a .LWR or something. This file would be a single file that would contain all the info needed to render that camera view. Yes it could be a large file but it will not be permanently saved. You can then simply queue up a bunch of these files on any machine to render and they can be from all different scenes and cameras, etc. This is the workflow that I used for much of my exhibit design still work on other software and it really works well.

Lewis
09-12-2008, 02:23 PM
I'd like the ability to set up X number of stills (or animations) to render at night, but not necessarily have them be part of a time line. They could be from different scenes or the same scene, from the same camera or different camera, etc.


You can do that NOW in 9.5 with "Render Q"

Titus
09-12-2008, 02:30 PM
a bucket renderer like brazil, mental ray, vray, final render can have HUGE scenes with millions and billions of polygons in the scene..the renderer just need the ram to work on the current bucket and not the whole image and eack bucket can be assigned to a core or a pc for distributed rendereing on a single image with a network of computers all workingn on 1 image.

http://cebas.com/products/products.php?UD=10-7888-33-788&PID=17

What is Bucket rendering?
A lot of confusion is going on with the term "Bucket Rendering" many users think that this term describes a special rendering method or a special algorithm how images are rendered. Some developers have (mis-)use the term to explain why their rendering system creates better images. Bucket Rendering is nothing more than a description of the way that a frame buffer or image is subdivided. The well known scanline rendering method for example, uses "scanlines" to render an image. Single or multiple scanlines of the image may be rendered in one go. Also, scanlines may be split amongst multiple CPUs for multi processor computers. This is what 3ds max's renderer usually does. In contrast to scanlines, Buckets are not "lines", they are rectangular (usually quadratic e.g. 32x32, 64x64 pixels) areas of the image to be rendered. Buckets have some advantages over scanlines when load balancing and network distribution is involved. finalRender's raytracer fully supports bucket rendering and for future versions of finalRender you can expect to see distributed network rendering at its best.

Pixar invented buckets as part of the REYES (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Reyes-pipeline.gif) algorithm, and in RenderMan terms it means the scene is splitted at rendering time in an area covering part of the screen, here's a snippet of the wikipedia article:

"A common memory optimization introduces a step called bucketing prior to the dicing step. The output image is divided into a coarse grid of "buckets," each typically 16 by 16 pixels in size. The objects are then split roughly along the bucket boundaries and placed into buckets based on their location. Each bucket is diced and drawn individually, and the data from the previous bucket is discarded before the next bucket is processed. In this way only a frame buffer for the current bucket and the high-level descriptions of all geometric primitives must be maintained in memory. For typical scenes, this leads to a significant reduction in memory usage compared to the unmodified Reyes algorithm."

Lw instead loves to have all the objects in memory, leading to some render crashes with the message: "not enough memory to render polygons". I've had many of these in the previous months.

JeffrySG
09-12-2008, 04:00 PM
:thumbsup:
You can do that NOW in 9.5 with "Render Q"Wow! I didn't know that! I'm still running 9.3.1 on my mac.

geothefaust
09-12-2008, 04:04 PM
Yep! Go to master plugins, and add it from there. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised.

Andyjaggy
09-12-2008, 04:27 PM
:thumbsup:Wow! I didn't know that! I'm still running 9.3.1 on my mac.

What are you crazy!!!! 9.5 is free and full of wonderful goodness.

The renderQ is unfortunately not nearly as robust as what you want, but it will let you set up a bunch of renders to go. I really wish we could specify the camera and frame range for each on in the renderQ but maybe in the future.

adamredwoods
09-12-2008, 04:40 PM
What are you crazy!!!! 9.5 is free and full of wonderful goodness.


Not on Mac, just yet.

BeeVee
09-12-2008, 04:52 PM
Hey Andy,

One of the main reasons that the code for RenderQ is open is so people can add their own particular needs to the script.

B

jin choung
09-12-2008, 06:12 PM
i'm assuming that modo (it has a bucket renderer no?), brazil, vray, etc. found a way around it but isn't one of the traditional issues with bucket rendering ray-tracing?

cuz if the renderer doesn't have any idea in what's in the scene aside from the current bucket, then it can't figure out what the rays are bouncing off of.

so it's fine for a scanline renderer but can't for raytracer?

anyone know how they're getting around that? would be interested to know.

jin

Titus
09-12-2008, 06:39 PM
You're right, Modo has buckets. RenderMan also has buckets-raytracing since version 11, so we may assume what Lux did is now part of Modo thanks to an IP exchange agreement. I don't have any technical knowledge on how to achieve this.

Sensei
09-12-2008, 08:38 PM
cuz if the renderer doesn't have any idea in what's in the scene aside from the current bucket, then it can't figure out what the rays are bouncing off of.

Geometry is generated when ray flies near it.. Before that there is just bounding box..



so it's fine for a scanline renderer but can't for raytracer?

Eeee?? LW have used scanline render engine just to find what is front most visible.. Then it used ray-tracing for reflections and refractions..
Buckets rendering is only for ray-tracing..

jin choung
09-12-2008, 09:50 PM
Buckets rendering is only for ray-tracing..

renderman was a bucket renderer before it was a raytracer.

http://www.k-3d.org/wiki/RenderMan_Controls ... read down to bucket render

render man got ray tracing relatively recently around a bugs life.

so what do you mean?

jin

jin choung
09-12-2008, 09:59 PM
a good break down of "bucket rendering" is described here in an entry regarding REYES: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reyes_rendering

after the 6 steps of the traditional reyes render pipeline, they talk about bucket rendering as a method of mitigating memory limitations.

jin

jin choung
09-12-2008, 10:14 PM
alright,

this got me curious enough for me to start looking into it on my own - found:

http://www.sidefx.com/docs/houdini8/content/base/render_about.xml there's a houdini article that talks about bucket rendering and micropolygons VS. raytracing.... actually it says mantra can do "scanline raytracing"... i've heard lw called a "hybrid" renderer, i wonder if that means the same thing?

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

also, i wonder how lw's "segments" differ... in essence, doesn't this allow us to render beyond the ability to hold a single image in memory as well?

jin

Lightwolf
09-13-2008, 04:31 AM
modo is also a hybrid thingy, you can choose between Automatic, Scanline and Ray Trace.
Afaik mental ray is as well.
Scanline can be faster in computing the first hit of geometry from the camera, but doesn't work with "warped" projections (such as lens distortions or panorama rendering).

On of the main advantages of bucket rendering (besides the "lazy" evaluation of geometry - i.e. only generate what you need when you need it) is, as Jin mentioned, memory usage. This can help a great deal with AA, as all samples contributing to a pixel can be stored in a raw form and then filtered once the buckets has finished. This usually means that you need less samples to achieve better AA.
LW can't do that, because it would mean storing all samples in memory for the whole image. Since it can easily generate hundreds of samples per image pixel, 4 bytes each for a float component, 3 components for an RGB buffer... it quickly adds up.

Cheers,
Mike

IMI
09-13-2008, 08:59 AM
...

WHAT WOULD STILL MAKE LW WORTHWHILE FOR YOU?



Well, it's "worthwhile" for me, even if nothing changes... unless I get into CA at some point, then, well, maybe by the time I know what I'm doing there will be better CA tools...
Aside from that, I've recently been using LW more for what it was designed for: animating. I've known how to use the animation tools in Layout to a reasonable degree for quite a while now, though nothing fancy, but just simple stuff such as animating lighting changes over a still scene, or camera "walkthroughs". But since I started really digging into dynamics, I've become far more interested in animation.

So, to get back to the question, "WHAT WOULD STILL MAKE LW WORTHWHILE FOR YOU?"...

Right now I could say getting Screamernet to work would be cool. I can't believe what a convoluted process it is. Well, maybe that's normal for all apps over a network, and I know Vista and its incessant nannying doesn't help much, but still...
So, I've spent the last few hours here trying to accomplish a simple screamernet test, having set up everything very carefully according to a few tutorials using both UNC and mapped network drives, but still, nothing but "No network cpu's found" or something like that. Well, my other computers would beg to differ, but, oh well, enough for today.
I'm pretty sure I need to rearrange something or other. My setup for Content folders and configs works great for me on one PC, but it's probably less than ideal for screamernet. I'm thinking all those spaces and dots in the paths might not be such a good idea, and at some point during mapping a network drive, Vista gives me the error that I don't have permission to do...whatever it was I tried to do. And I'm admin, logged on as admin, and have all that babysittingware turned off...

Yeah, I know, we have a screamernet forum here, but I wanted to get this on my own. Now I'm too frustrated to continue... maybe later. Sorry for the rant. :)

IMI
09-13-2008, 09:05 AM
Oops, I just noticed this was supposed to be about LW 10, not the current. Oh well, sorry about that. Don't mind me, just passing through. ;)

Jim M
09-13-2008, 07:33 PM
If its just incremental....

Make it use my video card.... fully....

Expand the nodal system, so its global. And make a surface node visible in displacement and a displacement node tree visible in Motion Node editor etc...
Access to subdivision commands within node networks...
Stick in some node folders (within node networks) for ease of visibility and tidiness...

Look at Adobe After FX for layout and flexible/responsive workspaces...

Well the list could go on ... and on ... (rewrite)

Salv8or
09-14-2008, 09:42 AM
Dubble posted.

Salv8or
09-14-2008, 09:43 AM
I think all of you guys have good ideas, thou I have to lean towards the polypushing frankenstein.. Yes, I realy would like ro see a smart instancing in layout.. coz damn im tired of the "cant render poly" message.. Yeah, sure memory is cheep, but when you run out of slots then??? Ahh, you get my point.. Also the cleaning up of modeler would be nice.

I dont want to get in to this, but am I the only one that feels alittle scared of the whole merging the two together. One of the nice things about LW i think, is the ease to reshape a object or to just create a fast mocup for an object, and not having to restar a new scene or what not.. Just a quick "alt+tab" and tinker a bit, press the magic "send to layout" and, presto.

NT realy need to come up with somthing realy nifty to pull the merge of...

Come to think about it, as im typing I acctually came up with some things that could make it work.. hmm.. Okej then Go NT..

Hmm.. And another thing.. why oh why doesnt all things in layout work with all threds on my quad???? (dynamics)

hrgiger
09-14-2008, 09:55 AM
Hmm.. And another thing.. why oh why doesnt all things in layout work with all threds on my quad???? (dynamics)

As far as I know, dynamics are not multi-threaded. Rendering is, and now deformations are, but dynamics are one of those things that Newtek said they plan to overhaul. I'm sure they have plans to make sure most if not all of the application is multi-threaded.

Cageman
09-14-2008, 10:15 AM
When it comes to dynamics, I really hope that NewTek will consider to implement PhysX instead of writing their own solution. Especially now since (if I have understood things correctly) NVidia have said that thier GFX-cards will be able to compute PhysX.

geo_n
09-14-2008, 10:53 AM
I want vray, final render support. Solves many issues being discussed here. :thumbsup:

Salv8or
09-14-2008, 10:55 AM
When it comes to dynamics, I really hope that NewTek will consider to implement PhysX instead of writing their own solution. Especially now since (if I have understood things correctly) NVidia have said that thier GFX-cards will be able to compute PhysX.


As ive heard they already implemented the insturctions since the 8000 series and its just a driver update away. But then I might have been told wrong.

Titus
09-14-2008, 11:10 AM
Physx was implemented by nvidia first using CUDA, liquidpack is an example of this use. But I don't need physx support, I really want better particle systems... more like fluids.

Ztreem
09-14-2008, 11:23 AM
But I don't need physx support, I really want better particle systems... more like fluids.

That's what you can get wiht PhysX and that's why we want it. We can get good, accurate and fast rigid body dynamics, cloth dynamics, soft body dynamics and liquid dynamics and hardware support only by owning a new nvidia graphics card. :thumbsup:

Thomas M.
09-14-2008, 11:25 AM
If LW 10 is not revolutionary.... if it is merely incremental....

the same guys who are moaning now, will still moan and probably start a "If LW 11 is not revolutionary" thread posting the same concerns and requests again and again and again and ...

I wonder if some posters actually work with LW or if they just bought it to participate in "moaning threads" where they repeat themselves over and and over again? From some of them I've never seen an image, but endless discussion?! Wow!

Titus
09-14-2008, 11:25 AM
Physx support doesn't give you good particle systems automatically, see liquidpack.

Sensei
09-14-2008, 11:28 AM
I wonder if some posters actually work with LW or if they just bought it to participate in "moaning threads" where they repeat themselves over and and over again? From some of them I've never seen an image, but endless discussion?! Wow!

Jin Choung even admitted here that he has no FPrime.. ;)

jasonwestmas
09-14-2008, 11:40 AM
I want vray, final render support. Solves many issues being discussed here. :thumbsup:

No real reason to use Layout then imo unless it was lightwave specific.

Ztreem
09-14-2008, 11:51 AM
Physx support doesn't give you good particle systems automatically, see liquidpack.

of course not, it's just an dynamics engine/SDK not a ready particle solution or interface, but it'a good fundation to build the particle/dynamics engine around.

jin choung
09-14-2008, 02:06 PM
If LW 10 is not revolutionary.... if it is merely incremental....

the same guys who are moaning now, will still moan and probably start a "If LW 11 is not revolutionary" thread posting the same concerns and requests again and again and again and ...

I wonder if some posters actually work with LW or if they just bought it to participate in "moaning threads" where they repeat themselves over and and over again? From some of them I've never seen an image, but endless discussion?! Wow!

you're probably talking about me so why not just say so? : )

as for an image, well i'm not one to brag, but if you watch television you might have.

jin

jasonwestmas
09-14-2008, 02:07 PM
Don't cha have a website Jin?

jin choung
09-14-2008, 02:08 PM
Jin Choung even admitted here that he has no FPrime.. ;)

yup no fprime... am i missing a joke here?

jin

jin choung
09-14-2008, 02:12 PM
Don't cha have a website Jin?

nope. web development's always been somewhat alien to me. it's one of those things that's always on my to do list (and may reside there perpetually)... : )

i have my resume and demo reels on thumbdrive for the time being, ready to prove myself at a moment's notice to anyone who matters (usually involves pay).

jin

geothefaust
09-14-2008, 02:19 PM
Hey Jin, I'm with you there. Web dev isn't something I like, nor good at. I finally decided to revamp my old crap site, in favor of using wordpress. It's pretty simple to use, and you can edit the themes pretty easily.


Anyway, being able to see a normal map, displacement map, or any channel such as color, diffuse, etc., in a viewport would be bad @ss.

faulknermano
09-14-2008, 09:02 PM
but if you watch television you might have.

jin

out of curiousity, what shows / titles are you and your coworkers working on now (unless you're not allowed to say)?

jin choung
09-14-2008, 09:49 PM
out of curiousity, what shows / titles are you and your coworkers working on now (unless you're not allowed to say)?

sorry, actually i'm not allowed to say.

why? don't believe me? : )

jin

geo_n
09-14-2008, 10:43 PM
No real reason to use Layout then imo unless it was lightwave specific.

but how will you make your scene without layout??? vray, final render can't do that by themselves. Just want a better general renderer that has bucket render, distributed render,better gi animation, etc. :D

faulknermano
09-14-2008, 11:22 PM
sorry, actually i'm not allowed to say.

why? don't believe me? : )

jin


:) that's ok, i know of instances where that could be the case.

Skywatcher_NT
09-15-2008, 04:50 AM
If LW 10 is not revolutionary.... if it is merely incremental....

the same guys who are moaning now, will still moan and probably start a "If LW 11 is not revolutionary" thread posting the same concerns and requests again and again and again and ...

I wonder if some posters actually work with LW or if they just bought it to participate in "moaning threads" where they repeat themselves over and and over again? From some of them I've never seen an image, but endless discussion?! Wow!


:agree:

UnCommonGrafx
09-15-2008, 05:02 AM
Read only the posts from...122-124.

My thoughts on both sides of the fence I read of in these few pieces of the thread:
Jin is valuable in his ability to generate conversation. Given that his points generally are on point, it has always lead me to believe "I don't need to taste his cooking to know it probably tastes good." With all the cooking shows on, this is easy to understand.

As to whether his commentary is invalid due to some ratio of pics posted, this seems ludicrous and without merit. There are enough studio types on this board that an NDA is the general Personal filter of the day. This is a learning and discussion place, afterall, with pretty pics coming after the fact of the learnin' and discussin'.

Conversation/threads posted : "Complaints:pics posted" isn't a very strong argument nor contribution to the conversation it would seem.

Jin's general premise is valid, I believe. I also believe it is why we are getting what we are now, feature-wise, because of the changes that will make it 'revolutionary' for 10.

We shall see.

jasonwestmas
09-15-2008, 08:19 AM
but how will you make your scene without layout??? vray, final render can't do that by themselves. Just want a better general renderer that has bucket render, distributed render,better gi animation, etc. :D

Well my point was that the main reason to use lightwave in the first place is to use the LW renderer. That is the best deal. If you don't like the LW renderer then I would just use Vray with some other app that better facilitates your animation needs (if you even need animation). But hey, if you think layout is the best for what you are doing by all means use it. If you are going to pay the extra money for another renderer might as well get the best tools. :)
It just seems odd to replace lightwave's best strength. If people could use Fprime with another package I'm sure some would if they could.

faulknermano
09-15-2008, 08:59 AM
As to whether his commentary is invalid due to some ratio of pics posted, this seems ludicrous and without merit.




hopefully you're not referring to my question to jin, which was asked truly out of curiosity.

as for the thread's topic: i think some are too hopeful for big changes for the hypothetical increment. and the reason why i 'bit' into the thread is because it did offer another way of seeing what was absolutely needed, as opposed to what we'd like to see down the line, eventually. one can look at it from the standpoint of features vs. the performance / stability of that feature. for example, we always want more speed, but how much speed do we want? i compare the performance of other 3d apps. take item selection: selecting 500 items in Layout is like being the 500th customer on the queue to the checkout counter. another example: we have a node editor, but have interface quirks like not being able to connect nodes if they are zoomed out, and the user cannot zoom in or out using modifier keys; the user must resort to the widget (or in my case, i used autohotkey as a workaround). nodes, moreover, cannot be shared across architectures (though i admit that would be more than a minor undertaking).

so we have great LW features, but either their performance, ease-of-use, stability, and other factors limit their greatness. and i think, imo, an incremental LW should tighten up those screws.

faulknermano
09-15-2008, 09:08 AM
Well my point was that the main reason to use lightwave in the first place is to use the LW renderer. ...

It just seems odd to replace lightwave's best strength. If people could use Fprime with another package I'm sure some would if they could.

i half agree: there are things other than the renderer LW (meaning Layout) that make LW more desirable to use. first thing that comes to mind is how it handles real-time deformation.

jasonwestmas
09-15-2008, 09:13 AM
Deforming what in real time. . .anything? What's special about how LW does that?

faulknermano
09-15-2008, 09:19 AM
deforming meshes, and sorry, i specifically was talking about displacements. it's not that it is 'special', but that it can do it and very straightforward. i'd rather do it in LW than in Maya, for example.

jasonwestmas
09-15-2008, 09:50 AM
Yes OGL displacement is nice. :) I'm using it as we speak.

wp_capozzi
09-15-2008, 10:01 AM
How about a LW10 that is completely modular. Every animation and modeling tool is separated into a "plugin" module that can see, hear, and talk to any other plugin. The framework of the software could be a single app that branches into any combination of these smaller plugins. So maybe based on a set of configs, you could have just a modeler, or a modeler/ layout hybrid, or a simple stand alone renderer, or all in one. Load in only the modules you need or want for a project. Trade configs with others, add in new plugins. Everyone could have a version of Lightwave that suites them.

The idea isn't really in keeping with the thread and not even new. Instead of creating a new giant monster to wrestle with, how about breaking the exsisting LW down into it's smallest components and build it from there. LegoLightwave.

starbase1
09-15-2008, 10:41 AM
Getting back to where it is actually going, I think we have quite a few clues...

It is relatively simple to change the interface independent of the actual code that does the work. And we know that Newtek have been publicly encouraging discussion of the modeler layout merge. I would therefore personally be VERY surprised if work in this direction is not already well advanced. Given the way that every suggestion or beta feature is treated as a cast iron promise by some, I don't think they would encourage talk about something they can't deliver.

We have also heard that the point releases in V10+ will not necessarily be free. I have no problem with this, and to me it also suggests that Newtek are confident of picking up the pace and delivering major improvements in shorter timescales. (Of course there's nothing to stop it only being a token upgrade cost, but that would hardly be worth the change).

I genuinely believe that the guys try VERY hard to deliver great value, and I don't think they would charge us more without delivering more.

So in summary, (and in complete ignorance of the facts!), my own feeling is:

LW10 is already underway, and has been for some considerable time.
We will see a major overhaul of the interface, probably merging the two main components.
I expect it to be the most major update since I first used it back at V5.6


Course, this could be wishful thinking!

hrgiger
09-15-2008, 10:58 AM
And getting back to Jins original question, what would make LW10 worthwhile for me? I would like to use Lighwave for rendering and some hard surface and architectural modeling (mostly due to the amazing power of LWCAD and XSI's still Alien unit system) and XSI for rigging, weighting, and animation. So the few but important things that would make LW10 worthwhile would be:

1. Better handling of large scenes (the most I could ever get out of my 32 bit version of LW was around 1.4 million polygons). I would pay for an upgrade to Lightwave for this Alone!
2. An interactive previewing solution. I don't care if it's Fprime or Lightwave but please make it work with most Lightwave features unlike now.

There are many other things I would like to see but when it gets down to it, I see these as essential.

geo_n
09-15-2008, 11:02 AM
Well my point was that the main reason to use lightwave in the first place is to use the LW renderer. That is the best deal. If you don't like the LW renderer then I would just use Vray with some other app that better facilitates your animation needs (if you even need animation). But hey, if you think layout is the best for what you are doing by all means use it. If you are going to pay the extra money for another renderer might as well get the best tools. :)
It just seems odd to replace lightwave's best strength. If people could use Fprime with another package I'm sure some would if they could.

main reason to use lw is the renderer??? if you think so :thumbsup:
if you can afford to buy the other appz buy it yes? :thumbsup:
yes we sometimes need gi with moving objects thats more mature.
anyway lw is more than its renderer. but more renderer plugs the better. :thumbsup:

geothefaust
09-15-2008, 01:24 PM
How about a LW10 that is completely modular. Every animation and modeling tool is separated into a "plugin" module that can see, hear, and talk to any other plugin. The framework of the software could be a single app that branches into any combination of these smaller plugins. So maybe based on a set of configs, you could have just a modeler, or a modeler/ layout hybrid, or a simple stand alone renderer, or all in one. Load in only the modules you need or want for a project. Trade configs with others, add in new plugins. Everyone could have a version of Lightwave that suites them.

The idea isn't really in keeping with the thread and not even new. Instead of creating a new giant monster to wrestle with, how about breaking the exsisting LW down into it's smallest components and build it from there. LegoLightwave.

I've given some thought to this very idea as well. I think it has merit, and hell, it would be great to have the version of lightwave you want!

Want just a modeler? You got it. Just the render engine? Done.

That would be cool.

bobakabob
09-15-2008, 01:29 PM
I've given some thought to this very idea as well. I think it has merit, and hell, it would be great to have the version of lightwave you want!

Want just a modeler? You got it. Just the render engine? Done.

That would be cool.


Nah. You've got all that modular stuff in C4D. And have you seen the price?

lardbros
09-15-2008, 01:30 PM
i'm liking this thread... so far it's been quite telling of what people really want from Lightwave.

For me, it's very similar to most so far... i want it to do something that the others don't. Speed is VERY important, and i mean both rendering and viewport performance. The renderer is damn good, and has had some great updates of late, but the opengl has really suffered, and by suffered i mean SERIOUSLY. We need everything that can be offered by opengl in lightwave... speed, nice shaders etc. BUT I want it to be accurate. DirectX has gained speed by being far too inaccurate for me. In 3ds max, if you create a box and then zoom in on the lines of the box, they won't even match up, despite them just being drawn, and they are definitely square. So keeping the accuracy as it is now would be nice.

I also want per pixel displacement, it is standard in most apps, and is great to be able to use.

Instancing of geometry and allowing offset animation too.

A consolidated rigging workflow. I know newtek have kinda started on i already, with the make chain button etc, but it needs to be completely foolproof, so complex rigs can be made with ease, and preferably incorporating a nodal workflow!

That is my be-all and end-all wish list for the near future, anything else is a bonus.

cresshead
09-15-2008, 01:31 PM
modular would be okay if you don't need them to talk to each other 'live' to keep one another updated...as soon as you need that you double/triple/quadruple your cpu time and memory requirrements with the more modules you add on...

if however you mean a 'single app' that has plugin modules you can buy/use similar to cinema 4d then not too bad except you then fall into the cinema 4d upgrade trap where if you get a new core all the modules now don't work and you HAVE to upgrade them to get them working again...great for them as they have load of upgrade cash coming in!

bobakabob
09-15-2008, 01:45 PM
modular would be okay if you don't need them to talk to each other 'live' to keep one another updated...as soon as you need that you double/triple/quadruple your cpu time and memory requirrements with the more modules you add on...

if however you mean a 'single app' that has plugin modules you can buy/use similar to cinema 4d then not too bad except you then fall into the cinema 4d upgrade trap where if you get a new core all the modules now don't work and you HAVE to upgrade them to get them working again...great for them as they have load of upgrade cash coming in!

Modular would be a disaster. Lightwave's appeal has always been the fact it's a good value integrated app straight out of the box. Remember Inspire? Look at the competitors - C4D is too pricey and XSI's strength is the synthesis between modelling animation and rendering.

There are already a host of plugins you can invest in if you want to expand the feature set.

geothefaust
09-15-2008, 02:26 PM
Nah. You've got all that modular stuff in C4D. And have you seen the price?

Err, yeah I suppose that's right. I wouldn't want something similar to that to happen to LW.

ctuller
09-15-2008, 02:40 PM
Nah. You've got all that modular stuff in C4D. And have you seen the price?

I agree. This is the very reason that I left C4D for LightWave. I love the modular layout and object oriented modeling of the integrated app in C4D.
But I'm not a professional as I am doing 3D animation/modeling for a hobby to help de-stress from a hectic day job, and I can't justify the cash neccessary to upgrade to their complete Suite.

LW gives me all the bells and whistles at a killer price point, and I feel that is one of their great strengths.
So yeah, incremental rather than revolutionary to stay in the same price point and continue to tweak the UI and fix the tool as they go.

wp_capozzi
09-16-2008, 01:37 AM
By modular, I was thinking fracturing it down to the smallest components and having each tool be a plugin. For instance, all modeling transform tools could be consolidated into one transform tool, and made animateable for both modeling and animation purposes. When you need that tool, it is loaded in to the basically empty app frame, and when a scene is saved, it also saves all the necessary parts in a config. You could have a standard set of modules that load in when you first get Lightwave -one that appears just like the Lightwave we all have now, or if you are inclined, you could customize your Lightwave to be larger or smaller or duty-centric depending on animation or modeling requirements. Maybe even 'load transform module on frame 24 for a specific operation, dump the module on frame 72 when done with operation' kind of thing. History option saved out as some kind of text file along with the other bits and pieces. It might open up a load of new functionality that we don't have now. Modeler, Layout, Renderer, or all in one. I guess the trick would be to make it transparent and easy to work with. Business-wise, not base it on exsisting software models like C4D, but something different. When a tool, ie. the transform tool is updated for a new version release, it slips in to the exsisting app frame, or more economically, if a bundle of tools were updated, they would all be the next point release or upgrade. Imaginary of course, but you wouldn't have to worry about upgrading to 10.5 and then upgrading all of the modules, you would just upgrade the entire thing as a bundle and it would be LW v10.x..., all updated modules included. In my imagination it would be transparent the way modules are part of the app, only more convenient to pop one in or pull one out as needed. All imaginary of course. I keep thinking about all of the plugins I use that are free or are commercial, and also thinking about the things they replace or embellish, and kinda wish there was more room for cleaning it all up and having better interaction between all of it. Maybe it would free up some system resources by having the option to load in modules as needed, script them with perl or python or javascript or xml or something, and allow for 1 app, 2 apps, or as many as desired. Consolidated and optional. All imaginary thoughts of course.

How ever it goes, as long as I can do work with it, Lightwave will be in my toolbox.

toby
09-16-2008, 02:45 AM
sorry, actually i'm not allowed to say.

why? don't believe me? : )

jin

Nope!!
If they've been broadcast, you're allowed to say *and show* them.
Hell, you're allowed to say what you're working on 99% of the time, even before they're broadcast. I know people who're working on Alice in Wonderland with Tim Burton, even when it was a secret they were allowed to say *what* they were working on.

And .. it doesn't look like you'll ever be able to keep this thread from becoming a "what do I want for LW10 christmas" thread...

geothefaust
09-16-2008, 09:57 AM
Half way decent UV tools (similar to maya's), animateable parameters (this includes modeling functions, so yes, a unified app too), and the ability to preview normal maps and nodes in viewports would be all I want for christmas! :p

jin choung
09-16-2008, 11:12 AM
Nope!!
If they've been broadcast, you're allowed to say *and show* them.
Hell, you're allowed to say what you're working on 99% of the time, even before they're broadcast. I know people who're working on Alice in Wonderland with Tim Burton, even when it was a secret they were allowed to say *what* they were working on.

>yawn<

read his question please.

he's asking what i'm working on NOW. he did NOT ask what i've worked on previously.

and regardless of what people can do 99% of the time, i am NOT allowed to talk about what i'm working on now. which is btw, NOT for tv.

and finally, if you don't believe me, i can care less.

jin

toby
09-16-2008, 09:00 PM
>yawn<

read his question please.

he's asking what i'm working on NOW. he did NOT ask what i've worked on previously.

and regardless of what people can do 99% of the time, i am NOT allowed to talk about what i'm working on now. which is btw, NOT for tv.

and finally, if you don't believe me, i can care less.

jin
Relax dude, I didn't think you were being serious ---> : )

jin choung
09-16-2008, 09:16 PM
i'm completely relaxed...

i WAS joking with that last bit about being believed....

but the situation is - i'm not working on a tv project and i can't talk about what it is i am working on. that is not a joke and was not intended to be read as such.

it doesn't mean it's indiana jones 7 or top secret government work but an NDA is an NDA.

jin

hrgiger
09-16-2008, 09:25 PM
I hope it's not Indiana Jones 7. I haven't even seen the fourth one yet(I've been warned to stay away).
Wasn't this thread having to do with Lightwave 10 or something?

jin choung
09-16-2008, 09:42 PM
thank you. yes. any other visions of an acceptable but non-revolutionary future?

jin

toby
09-16-2008, 09:53 PM
I hope it's not Indiana Jones 7. I haven't even seen the fourth one yet(I've been warned to stay away).
Wasn't this thread having to do with Lightwave 10 or something?
Well, see, if LW10 was an economy car, and Indiana Jones was an suv, then...
uhh, anyway... I'd upgrade if there was :

something really cool that I haven't thought of.
or
faster OpenGL for *all* the shading modes
or
a script editor
or
Vray support* - which of course has little to do with NT except that it requires an open architecture

*Why? If LW users could use vray, there'd be no reason for arch-viz people, and others, to switch, and that's good for LW. After using renderman and stand-alone mental ray, it's still my favorite renderer, and LW has the best workflow, aside from missing features, compared to Maya.

hrgiger
09-16-2008, 10:38 PM
something really cool that I haven't thought of.

Ooh, that sounds good. I want one of those in Lightwave 10 too. When you think of it, let me know, I want to hear all about it.

toby
09-17-2008, 02:07 AM
Ooh, that sounds good. I want one of those in Lightwave 10 too. When you think of it, let me know, I want to hear all about it.
:D
Haven't you noticed NT's tendency to do that?
"Perspective camera with photoreal motion blur? Whassat?"
"FiberFx? Whu-whu-whu-whassat?"
I wouldn't be surprised if they came out with something that none of us are asking for, yet we all find desirable

hrgiger
09-17-2008, 07:01 AM
:D

I wouldn't be surprised if they came out with something that none of us are asking for, yet we all find desirable

Like an ability to create a real women from our 3D version?

http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d84/missmeganp/WeirdScience28.jpg

geo_n
09-17-2008, 08:11 AM
i'm completely relaxed...

i can't talk about what it is i am working on.

jin

how about past projects where I'm sure its way over the nda. Would be curious what can be done with lw after 5 or more years with newtek. I tried looking at 2003 registered users work for some inspiration and some dont have any works at all to show. wierd!
at the top of my head who should be leading lw10 to new directions would be 3d generalists like proton, splinegod, cageman, mr.rid. Love their work :thumbsup:

robertoortiz
09-17-2008, 09:03 AM
Ok here are my principal requests from Lightwave...

* Render Pass Support (Ideally with a Adobe After Effects Export)
* Python Scripting Support (At least for the render nodes)

For me a revolutionary release would have:
* Non Linear Editing Tools
* Next Gen Rigging Tools
* Better integration with third party apps, like the Adobe Suite of Tools
* Better integration right off the box with other 3d apps like Z-Brush, Maya & Softimage
* New Volumetrics Engine (look at OGO_Taiki 1.17)
* New Physics Engine (look here for the bullet open source physics library)
http://www.bulletphysics.com/Bullet/wordpress/_


* Camera Tracking Tools right off the box
* Crowd Simulations capabilities..

robertoortiz
09-17-2008, 09:10 AM
Almost forgot:
Another incremental increase would be:

* New Cloth Engine (With intuitive controls, maybe node based)

jin choung
09-17-2008, 11:39 AM
at the top of my head who should be leading lw10 to new directions would be 3d generalists like proton, splinegod, cageman, mr.rid. Love their work :thumbsup:

great. you have your gurus all lined up then. have fun.

rest assured newtek's not listening to me. and neither should you.

jin

geothefaust
09-17-2008, 12:38 PM
Hey Jin, I'm curious. Has NT opened any lines of communication with you (or inverted) about what LW needs? I think you could contribute to it's development in a very good and much needed way.

lardbros
09-17-2008, 01:10 PM
....at the top of my head who should be leading lw10 to new directions would be 3d generalists like proton, splinegod, cageman, mr.rid. Love their work :thumbsup:

Gotta be honest, i'd rather Pooby and users who use other applications lead Lightwave into version 10. I've seen his work and it's truly remarkable, so i think people like that would stand newtek in good stead. I obviously think Proton and the rest should have a hand too, his work is brilliant, and i'm sure he's been helping with the .5 upgrade!

jin choung
09-17-2008, 01:21 PM
awww, thanks gtf.

but as indicated in my last post, no priveleged lines of communication. actually, i'm pretty certain at this point that they go out of their way NOT to listen to me.... : )

which is cool. it's their ball to do with as they will.

i'm perfectly happy wearing my sandwich boards and ringing my bell and if something resonates and more voices end up carrying the message, maybe then, a critical mass of opinion will eventually get heard.

but time and again, i have wondered... they're not listenin' to me... who ARE they listening to?

jin

Chuck
09-17-2008, 02:23 PM
great. you have your gurus all lined up then. have fun.

rest assured newtek's not listening to me. and neither should you.

jin

We listen to all our users who take the time to express themselves, Jin, and for whatever issues we may have with your particular style at times, it just is not the case that we discount your ideas, or anyone else's. Down the road a piece, you're likely to understand that our thinking may have been closer to yours than you would have imagined.

As for who else we are listening to besides our forum community, we also do focus groups, surveys, take time with our key accounts for on-site meetings, etc. We simply do our best to balance out the range of needs in selecting what to implement. By nature this is going to have frustrations for users - the fact is that virtually any given feature we could imiplement is something that some set of folks need, but some other set of folks do not need.

This thread is pretty interesting, lots of good food for thought, and we appreciate your starting such an interesting discussion.

Earl
09-17-2008, 02:56 PM
The issues most important to me that really need to be addressed are:

Scene/object management
Probably the number one area I really need improved. I've found that even simple ideas and scenes become quite cumbersome with LW's current management of objects/assets. New features should be: groups/layers (the ability to turn off visibility on a group/layer, rather than selecting everything manually); composition sets (similar to Photoshop's comps and/or SketchUp's "pages")

High polygon performance
Many times I get ground contours from CAD or other sources and they come in with TONS of geometry. I mean tons of it. Often it's very difficult to optimize this type of geometry without destroying the accuracy and integrety. I would like to be able to still work in LW without it slowing to a crawl.

Instancing, both geometry and object/rendering
It's long overdue. My last major work project required hundreds of trees, and all of them had to be placed so they would rest properly on the ground (with complex contours) and vary enough that they didn't look cloned. So much of my time could have been saved with proper object instancing. There needs to be tools for managing groups of instances (for instance, automatic resting on ground objects or below ground objects by a certain distance for mass amounts of objects). Both geometry instancing within 'modeler' and object/rendering instancing in 'layout' (I'm hoping these two are properly integrated in v10).

Non-destructive content creation
From start to finish, I want my objects/assets to be created non-destrutively. We're not in the '90s anymore. We need a smart and effective undo-system that works seamlessly with a construction history. And it needs to be rock-solid and geared towards massive, complex creations. Oh, and I want it fast. ;)

Those are the most important to me. But I'm sure (like everyone) I could go on and on and on...

Cageman
09-17-2008, 03:02 PM
This thread is pretty interesting, lots of good food for thought, and we appreciate your starting such an interesting discussion.

I hope this will remove any thoughts that NT doesn't listen. Thanks for posting Chuck... and yes... this thread is really good!

:thumbsup:

Lightwolf
09-17-2008, 03:03 PM
I hope this will remove any thoughts that NT doesn't listen.
Not only that, but they can read as well! :dance:

Cheers,
Mike

jin choung
09-17-2008, 03:35 PM
We listen to all our users who take the time to express themselves, Jin, and for whatever issues we may have with your particular style at times, it just is not the case that we discount your ideas, or anyone else's. Down the road a piece, you're likely to understand that our thinking may have been closer to yours than you would have imagined.

gee.

that's rather more re-assurance than i was expecting.

thanks chuck.

jin

geo_n
09-17-2008, 11:36 PM
great. you have your gurus all lined up then. have fun.

rest assured newtek's not listening to me. and neither should you.

jin

haha. I'm sure they're listening....passively or not, atleast...

geo_n
09-17-2008, 11:45 PM
Gotta be honest, i'd rather Pooby and users who use other applications lead Lightwave into version 10. I've seen his work and it's truly remarkable, so i think people like that would stand newtek in good stead. I obviously think Proton and the rest should have a hand too, his work is brilliant, and i'm sure he's been helping with the .5 upgrade!

Looked at poobys work. Its excellent. Definitely a lw veteran. But seems he's not posting lw related work too much.
The problem with making people who use other appz to join in is they do more harm than good. More complaints than being constructive.
I've picked on lw sometimes too for not having some features in max but thinking about it thoroughly its just not easy to integrate it in lw.

Dodgy
09-18-2008, 01:10 AM
Pooby has animated in XSI for a while now, could be a couple of years.

lardbros
09-18-2008, 01:18 AM
Pooby has animated in XSI for a while now, could be a couple of years.

This was kind of my point... get people who maybe still like Lightwave and use other fully featured apps, and they can help with character animation solutions that are far more complex than LW has at the mo?

Cageman
09-18-2008, 01:40 AM
This was kind of my point... get people who maybe still like Lightwave and use other fully featured apps, and they can help with character animation solutions that are far more complex than LW has at the mo?

That's just 1/2 of the job, the second is to constantly use LW and push the limits. The new tools implemented with LW9.5 and possibly more to come in LW9.5.1, Pooby has to experiement a lot with LW in order to be 100% valuable when it comes to evaluating the state of LW compared to other apps.

There are certanly parts of LW that anyone who are using Maya can say: Hey... this is sweet in Maya, let us have similarities in LW.

At the same time, the implemented feature may be used in a different way, not nessesarily bad (that is, fitting the workflow of LW), and that is where the confusion may apear.

I'm just saying... it's not as easy as it sounds, especially if it's not a copy/paste from app x where the workflow as well is a copy/paste.

jin choung
09-18-2008, 02:50 AM
it doesn't matter.

it doesn't matter if people who've never used lw make a comment, critique or suggestion.

cuz when all is said and done, that idea (and the person most likely) will be processed and judged good, bad or silly.

i think we can assume that no feature gets implemented blindly, no matter how inappropriate, just because someone suggested it somewhere. the final figuring out of reconciling square pegs and round holes falls to the developer.

but i think lardbros is just making the broader point that you can see more clearly with the benefit of perspective. it's hard for you to properly judge yourself if all you know is your own family. the wider your point of reference, the more exposure you have to difference, the wider your perspective, the better and more accurate your judgments are and you can see your faults (and your virtues) more clearly. the perspective of highly insulated groups is necessarily limited and limiting.

that's one of the benefits of europe - EXPOSURE. you can travel less than the distance of an american state and have passed through a couple of different COUNTRIES! different languages, food, culture... perspective.

valuable.

jin

IMI
09-18-2008, 04:07 AM
Has anyone yet suggested bring an end to the dongle days? Is it just me, or doesn't that seem kinda dated?
Yeah, it's cool for portability, but there are other equally effective means to that end as well.

starbase1
09-18-2008, 05:19 AM
Has anyone yet suggested bring an end to the dongle days? Is it just me, or doesn't that seem kinda dated?
Yeah, it's cool for portability, but there are other equally effective means to that end as well.

What have you got in mind?

In my experience software based activation is a royal pain in the ar$e, (Yes, I mean Vue!). I'd certainly require a system that let ME move the licence around as freely as the dongle lets me do it now.

Nick

hrgiger
09-18-2008, 05:31 AM
Pooby is exactly the kind of person Newtek should be talking to. Pooby did push Lightwave to its limits but ultimately found there were things that could not be done, or could not be easily enough done in lightwave to justify using it. He uses XSI to animate and then brings the MDD data back to Lightwave for rendering. I am after a similar workflow for myself. Pooby is well aware of the areas that Lightwave needs to improve in to be on. Having said that, Pooby has already stated that he has told Newtek what he has to say on the matter.
I've only been using XSI for a few months and still have a lot to learn. But even in that short amount of time, I can see many areas that I never realized before in which Lightwave can be improved. A history stack, a decent constraint system for both modeling and animation operations, shape animation within Layout, polygon handling, animated modeling operations, non-destructive workflows, curves can be modified when used for modeling and the geometry will follow along, weight painting on a rigged mesh, modifiers and dynamics working with IK...so many things.
Having said that, there is a certain simplicity about Lightwave that I consider to be one of its selling points. Lightwave is a great tool for getting things done and I believe that improvements can't come at the cost of ease of use. Of course, there's going to be some bumps, it can't all be easy. Take the node editor for example. It's a lot for some people to grasp (and I'm including myself) and I see very few people pushing it to its limits. But it is a powerful feature at your disposal. Fortunately, we still have an easy to understand layering system as a backup. A history stack would be the same thing. It does add a lot of options but it can be confusing to understand just how useful it can be and how best to make use of it.
I don't know what 10 is going to be like but I certainly hope that a major focus is having all of Lightwave's parts work effectively together instead of just sort of working beside each other as a lot of them do now.

Andyjaggy
09-18-2008, 08:53 AM
I don't understand what everyone had against the dongle. Unless of coarse you are needing to run LW on like 20 machines or something, then a network license would be nice.

JeffrySG
09-18-2008, 09:34 AM
I don't understand what everyone had against the dongle. Unless of coarse you are needing to run LW on like 20 machines or something, then a network license would be nice.

Personally, I don't mind the dongle at all. I have had more problems installing LW and getting the key all set up than I have had installing any other application, but I don't think that has to do with the dongle itself. I would much rather have the dongle than the stupid machine registration system that Adobe uses.

hrgiger
09-18-2008, 10:26 AM
I like the dongle better then the license server I use for XSI.

robertoortiz
09-18-2008, 10:27 AM
Personally, I don't mind the dongle at all. I have had more problems installing LW and getting the key all set up than I have had installing any other application, but I don't think that has to do with the dongle itself. I would much rather have the dongle than the stupid machine registration system that Adobe uses.


Amen!

BTW some another thing that I would add:
(This is an old request from me)

PREMADE RIGS.


It would be cool if Lightwave had
Premade, customizable Biped & Quadruped Rigs right in the interface.
A brand new separate object class (like Null, Object, Lights) and I would call it "Actor".

An advantage to this would be pose libraries, crowd animation and more efficient sharing of animation data between different characters.

Chuck
09-18-2008, 11:42 AM
Regarding the discussion of folks that might be useful for NewTek to talk with, and why, without naming any names, it is the case that we have a lot of beta users who use other 3D applications extensively for a variety of purposes. This includes a lot of folks using other applications for character animation who are providing a lot of feedback that has helped shape recent changes and will of course be even more significant in future changes to our CA implementation. Then of course, we do monitor the open beta and our own and other public forums for discussions, etc. Plus of course researching the net and developing personal contacts for info on how users are using our own and other applications, research papers, etc. Plus of course having other applications for hands-on familiarity. The notion that our own development will proceed much better if thoroughly informed regarding all applications and a range of users from all applications is, of course, quite sensible.

IMI
09-18-2008, 12:03 PM
I don't understand what everyone had against the dongle. Unless of coarse you are needing to run LW on like 20 machines or something, then a network license would be nice.

I just worry about losing it or breaking it. I did lose it once, and searched all over, only to find it in a heap of clothes about to go into the wash. ;)
No, I don't have anything else in mind which would be sufficient to protect multiple installations from running at once, but then again, I'm not a programmer.
I just *assume* there is something equally effective, but that's for the brainiac programmers to figure out. ;)

geothefaust
09-18-2008, 12:15 PM
Hell yeah. Chuck, that is what I wanted to hear. :thumbsup:


As a note, I'm still relatively new (as to my skill level) to rigging and animation, but have been doing modeling for sometime now. But have been trying to learn rigging and animation off and on for sometime, now in LightWave, I simply find it to be cumbersome, at best. Nigh impossible even. It is daunting, but I kept plugging away. Until one day I just said to hell with it, I'll try XSI. Well, I jumped right in, used the biped rig guide, and within a matter of minutes I had a working rig that was EXACTLY what I needed, and wanted to learn. I didn't have to dink around with much either. Now I can get on to learning animation quicker then before, and eventually learn rigging at some point.

Anyway, my point is, to reiterate what Jin said, it's good to have a broader perspective of what is out there, and what tools are available to you.

Cageman
09-18-2008, 12:21 PM
Pooby is exactly the kind of person Newtek should be talking to. Pooby did push Lightwave to its limits but ultimately found there were things that could not be done, or could not be easily enough done in lightwave to justify using it.

Sure...as long as he keep doing the second part as well (refering to my previous post). LWs limits have changed quite severly with the last two .x versions, and even more so if you combine those changes with DPKit and Node Item Motion (free tools). I think it is quite important to know what these tools combined with native tools offers as well as what app x does. I'm not saying Pooby doesn't know... I'm just saying that it's "easy" to come from another app and say "Make x and y" without fully understanding how LWs workflow (the good parts of it) works..

One possible example... someone may come to LW and have negative things to say about LWs VMap implementation but still be a kick *** Maya rigger. But he isn't much of a help since he clearly doesn't understand the usage and implementation of VMaps, wich is far superior to how similar things are done in Maya.

hrgiger
09-18-2008, 12:55 PM
Sure...as long as he keep doing the second part as well (refering to my previous post). LWs limits have changed quite severly with the last two .x versions, and even more so if you combine those changes with DPKit and Node Item Motion (free tools). I think it is quite important to know what these tools combined with native tools offers as well as what app x does. I'm not saying Pooby doesn't know... I'm just saying that it's "easy" to come from another app and say "Make x and y" without fully understanding how LWs workflow (the good parts of it) works..



Well, as I said above, there are some underlying issues at hand even once you look past just raw features. Lightwave still suffers from the fact that items do not share all of their information with other items. IK and modifiers work in a linear fashion, one does it's thing then the other instead of actually working together. Modeling is still completely separate environment from Layout so there is no direct way to create shapes in joints, paint weights on deforming objects, or to animate modeling operations. There is no stack in Lightwave so once you perform an operation and you run out of undos, you're pretty much ship out of lake unless you can go back to a previous saved version. Lightwave has a destructive workflow and if you want to make a change to your rig, in most cases you can forget about any animation you may have already completed with that rig. I find too that even if I setup things just like I want them, I have had rigs that seem to break or get thrown out of whack for seemingly no reason. I said it before and I'll say it again, it's not always about how many features you have, but how do those features work and do they work together?
To give much credit to Newtek, they've added some very nice things in 9.5. It was such a pain in the butt to setup a IK/FK hierarchy and now it's automatic. They've added up vectors for IK and the new joint bones and soft IK. A lot of you already knew that I sold my license of Lightwave 9. Well, I also had a second license of Lightwave 8 that I bought a few years ago. Well, I have been impressed enough with the work that Jay and his team at Newtek have done on the 9 series that I upgraded this week and just received it via UPS about 20 minutes ago. (Chuck thank shipping for me for such a fast turnaround). I originally was holding out for 10 to see what it was going to be like but I feel confident that whatever it will be, I believe it will be worthwhile. LWCAD 3.0 had something to do with that for sure. Now between Lightwave and XSI, I believe my software identity crisis may be over.
Using XSI has given me some perspective on how easy things should be. I'm not saying that Lightwave should try and copy any other program out there including XSI, but I know now for myself that things can be much easier then they are in Lightwave, especially concerning character animation.

Cageman
09-18-2008, 01:14 PM
Well, as I said above, there are some underlying issues at hand even once you look past just raw features. Lightwave still suffers from the fact that items do not share all of their information with other items. IK and modifiers work in a linear fashion, one does it's thing then the other instead of actually working together. Modeling is still completely separate environment from Layout so there is no direct way to create shapes in joints, paint weights on deforming objects, or to animate modeling operations. There is no stack in Lightwave so once you perform an operation and you run out of undos, you're pretty much ship out of lake unless you can go back to a previous saved version. Lightwave has a destructive workflow and if you want to make a change to your rig, in most cases you can forget about any animation you may have already completed with that rig. I find too that even if I setup things just like I want them, I have had rigs that seem to break or get thrown out of whack for seemingly no reason. I said it before and I'll say it again, it's not always about how many features you have, but how do those features work and do they work together?

Just for your information, I do know about the limitations in LW... :)

My point was that "important people" have to constantly test implementations so that they makes sense in LW, and for that to actually work, you'll need people who knows LW inside out, more or less (and of course, an app that have better implementations for any given feature). All the stuff you mention above are things that are much deeper than any feature. Something I believe will be fixed in time, but I'm not at all convinced that a "copy and paste" from other apps are always going to be the best solution looking at the LW-workflow people generaly regard as good.

Hope that makes sense? :)




To give much credit to Newtek, they've added some very nice things in 9.5. It was such a pain in the butt to setup a IK/FK hierarchy and now it's automatic. They've added up vectors for IK and the new joint bones and soft IK. A lot of you already knew that I sold my license of Lightwave 9. Well, I also had a second license of Lightwave 8 that I bought a few years ago. Well, I have been impressed enough with the work that Jay and his team at Newtek have done on the 9 series that I upgraded this week and just received it via UPS about 20 minutes ago. (Chuck thank shipping for me for such a fast turnaround). I originally was holding out for 10 to see what it was going to be like but I feel confident that whatever it will be, I believe it will be worthwhile. LWCAD 3.0 had something to do with that for sure. Now between Lightwave and XSI, I believe my software identity crisis may be over.



Ahh... :) There you go! Nice to have you back! :)



Using XSI has given me some perspective on how easy things should be. I'm not saying that Lightwave should try and copy any other program out there including XSI, but I know now for myself that things can be much easier then they are in Lightwave, especially concerning character animation.

Sure... there are tons of things I want from Maya into LW as well... but I'm not sure, as I said above, that all of them would make sense in a LW-workflow as a straight "copy and paste".

geothefaust
09-18-2008, 04:07 PM
Sure... there are tons of things I want from Maya into LW as well... but I'm not sure, as I said above, that all of them would make sense in a LW-workflow as a straight "copy and paste".


I think the UV tools from Maya would work quite well; Copy and paste. :)

It has the best UV tools IMHO.

hrgiger
09-18-2008, 05:37 PM
These are the best UV tools I've seen so far. How do they compare to Mayas? www.uvlayout.com

IMI
09-18-2008, 05:55 PM
These are the best UV tools I've seen so far. How do they compare to Mayas? www.uvlayout.com

Headus UV Layout was used in a Digital Tutors video I bought when I was into the Maya PLE. Since UV mapping is one of my big things that I can actually claim to be rather good at and I do alot of, I can tell you UV Layout is extremely impressive in all it can do - from what I *saw*, that is - never tried it, though I do think there's a demo for it. Don't quote me on it, but I believe it's been widely adopted by the pros over even Maya's already impressive UV tools.

Honestly though, modo's UV tools are probably every bit as good as Maya's, though Maya has more options, like where it comes to going beyond the 0-1 UV space and such.

jin choung
09-18-2008, 06:09 PM
actually, aside from the lack of a good lscm unwrap, i prefer lw to maya.

maya has some nice features like a clean, up front interface for manipulating them but lw's is faster, has a lot of useful third party plugins (especially that one group of plugs that comes included now) and allows for useful snapping.

like most things in a mesh manip contest between lw and maya, lw proves to be more primitive and lower level but that's always been its advantage in the modeling realm.

if you've ever had to simply separate a section of a single skin object and make it into a separate object, you know what i mean. prone to errors and glitches in maya and even when it works perfectly, can't compare to 'x' switch layer 'v' in lw.

(tangential - again, the primitivity of lw's modeler, where it has no notion of "objects" DOES make modeler faster in a lot of tasks - though it makes repetitious detail more problematic if you're hellbent on doing it in modeler and not layout... anyway, i recognize the problem it poses but it also has its advantages)

the only thing i fing HATE about lw is the stupid fing weld/unweld and the red points... nothing really works like it should or reliably unless you just unweld the mfers. otherwise, sometimes the red vert separations work well and other times they don't and just create an fing mess.

if lw's implementation worked as it's intending on working, without bugginess, i'd choose lw's uv manip (with plugins and jin defined hotkeys) over maya's any day.

jin

p.s. actually, one of the ways lw's is faster - this is actually one of those rare areas where not having to work with a transform gizmo is a godsend... lots of times i miss an fing handle in maya and that dumps my selection! ack! in lw, i just hit 't' and i don't have to worry about "aiming".

IMI
09-18-2008, 06:50 PM
I dunno. I like LW's UV tools well enough. For that matter, I learned how to UV map in LW entirely. But aside from the PLG tools, nothing in LW ever came along to keep up with how I advanced in my mapping abilities.
Modo's UV tools, however, are like the PLG tools on steroids, but integrated - not a series of plugins. Just smoother. I don't know if I'd go so far as to say more capable, but since I got into modo, I haven't really worried about what's happening or not happening on the LW mapping front, if you know what I mean.
Maya just scares me. ;)
Although I am impressed with the speed with which people get things done in Maya, based on the video snippets I've seen and the few I have for ZBrush which also use maya.



the only thing i fing HATE about lw is the stupid fing weld/unweld and the red points... nothing really works like it should or reliably unless you just unweld the mfers. otherwise, sometimes the red vert separations work well and other times they don't and just create an fing mess.


Yup. I just can't deal with it, period.

hrgiger
09-18-2008, 07:12 PM
Well we definately need some better unwrapping in Lightwave other then your standard projections. A dash of pinning and with a pinch of relax would sure sweeten the pot as well.

Dodgy
09-18-2008, 08:24 PM
I'm with jin on this. I love the fact all of LW's tools work with UVs rather than having a separate tool for UVs like you have in maya, but I really want discontinuous UVS to work as they should. We could also do with UV options in the numeric panel alongside the X/Y/Z options you have in the scale tool for example. At the moment you have no way of telling a tool to work with UVs unless you use the tool in the UV window. The PLG unwrap tool I prefer to unwrapping in maya, the tools in maya are filled with caveats like 'this tool ignores your selection' or this tool only works on UVs. In LW you can select and use polygons OR points in the UV window with any tool, you can't do this in maya, it again restricts some tools to polys only or UVs only. I would like to see edge selection in the UV window too.

I'd like to see a mesh deformer like metalink/hardlink in real time, I believe the patents have expired on the relevant tech, so that should be doable in LW now. I use a lot of low poly stand ins, so this would be awesome.

I'd also like to see one file format which is xml based, and a really good referencing system, so you can use it either like models/scenes now, or just scenes within scenes.

Channel modifiers which read IK (which is more of a bug fix than a feature), or rather nodes which can read IK.

Opengl which'd be node based like in the Unreal 3 engine, so you basically get most shader effects in the viewport would be good too.

geothefaust
09-18-2008, 10:43 PM
HR, that program is pretty sweet. I can't justify the cost though, as I'm a hobbyist. :)

Jin, while I agree on most of Maya vs LW for UVs, I just wish that I had access to a few tools, on top of what LW can do now. I think it would make LW the best program to unwrap in. I am referring to the seam (I forget what the name of it was) tool. Or more specifically the tool that moves and seams edges, that thing is amazing to have!

Dodgy, I'm not suggesting that LW dump it's way of doing things. Just append a few more tools to how it's currently done, and I think we'll be sitting on top of a great big UV mountain of goodness. ;)

jin choung
09-18-2008, 11:05 PM
I am referring to the seam (I forget what the name of it was) tool. Or more specifically the tool that moves and seams edges, that thing is amazing to have!

i think you're talking about the lscm unwrap... being able to tag a seam and have it unwrap according to the seams you determine.

yah.

totally agree! apps that have that (maya, silo, blender, etc etc etc... : ) ) totally spank lw in terms of advanced feature and if i had to do a uv map of a character now, i'd definitely spend time in the aforementioned apps before bringing it into lw.

also as mentioned, the relax function is very very nice.

but yah, i've survived for years without such things so i just consider it gravy. (but again, don't get me wrong - i totally agree with you - i've asked for lscm unwrap the moment i heard about it!)

but i'd be able to get along even without that stuff if lw handled discontinuous uvs without bugginess (and unwelding).

actually, i even prefer what we had before where we HAD to unweld... it's horrible and not ideal but at least it wasn't a BUG! ack!

jin

faulknermano
09-18-2008, 11:26 PM
lots of times i miss an fing handle in maya and that dumps my selection! ack! in lw, i just hit 't' and i don't have to worry about "aiming".


tell me about it. :) furthermore, i like using the LW's deform tools in UV mode. but i wonder if maya 2008 already has similar tools.

geothefaust
09-18-2008, 11:26 PM
Yeah that's the one. I wouldn't mind just that one tool in LW, it would decrease time unwrapping drastically. :D
Ohhh, another thought just popped in. I would love to be able to select uv sections with out selecting the whole object, some kind of script I suppose would do this though?
I do wish they would fix the discontinuous UV issue.

Dodgy
09-18-2008, 11:29 PM
I've thought of something I would like from maya, I would like the sew and 'move and sew' tool. That's very useful for laying out atlas mapped meshes. The ability to select UV shells (which we have in LW via a plugin) should also be in there.

jin choung
09-18-2008, 11:35 PM
yah, shell select... that's what gtf is talkin' about... i've gotten sooooo used to select a poly then ']' to select the whole "part" but we should have a SELCONNECTED MODE in 3d views too...

jin

colkai
09-19-2008, 02:31 AM
I've thought of something I would like from maya, I would like the sew and 'move and sew' tool. That's very useful for laying out atlas mapped meshes. The ability to select UV shells (which we have in LW via a plugin) should also be in there.

I use the drag tool on a point with 'connected points' for moving but my idea of heaven would be able to use the LWCAD snapping tools on UVs as well as geometry. :)

IMI
09-19-2008, 05:10 AM
I've thought of something I would like from maya, I would like the sew and 'move and sew' tool. That's very useful for laying out atlas mapped meshes. The ability to select UV shells (which we have in LW via a plugin) should also be in there.

modo has "move and sew". Works pretty well.

The Dommo
09-19-2008, 05:18 AM
I'm seriously looking forward to LW10.... I feel giddy inside tinking about it. Haven't felt like that about a tool I want for years now.... :D

geothefaust
09-19-2008, 09:12 AM
yah, shell select... that's what gtf is talkin' about... i've gotten sooooo used to select a poly then ']' to select the whole "part" but we should have a SELCONNECTED MODE in 3d views too...

jin


Ahhh yeah, now that would be sweet...



Hey Dodgy, what is the name of that plugin? I would love to get my hands on it. :D

IMI
09-19-2008, 09:20 AM
I'm seriously looking forward to LW10.... I feel giddy inside tinking about it. Haven't felt like that about a tool I want for years now.... :D

Well, I wouldn't use up all that "giddy" all at once, now - I think you'll have plenty of time to refine and perfect that giddy feeling, in the time it takes LW 10 to come out. ;)

starbase1
09-19-2008, 09:53 AM
Well, I wouldn't use up all that "giddy" all at once, now - I think you'll have plenty of time to refine and perfect that giddy feeling, in the time it takes LW 10 to come out. ;)

Well, yes.
I think we can safely say he has the whole weekend for a start!

:D:D:D

jasonwestmas
09-19-2008, 10:09 AM
Ahhh yeah, now that would be sweet...



Hey Dodgy, what is the name of that plugin? I would love to get my hands on it. :D

http://www.dstorm.co.jp/english/plugin/modeler.htm

Select UV Island from Dstorm? It's ok, I wish it worked with just a single click, drag and move like you can in max.

Bog
09-19-2008, 12:17 PM
I think I'm going to mainly echo everyone else.

1) OpenGL (or whichever draw-library) performance, especially for many-object scenes. That really could do with a lot of improvement.

2) Tool consolidation - all those different shifts into one tabbed tool, preverably with one tab being hauntingly reminiscent of Vertibevel.

3) Tool intercommunication - I'd like my Surface panel to be able to hook into Particle Age. Or anything else for that matter - the data contained in each tool should be accessable by every other tool, for that Digital Meccano feel.

4) Tighter integration between modeler and layout. Being able to animate something like MagicBevel (for example) to animate topology growth would be a huge boon. That's just a random example.

5) Instancing, Realtime Previewer, and all those other speed-boosting goodies.

6) Input Devices, at the very least Space Navigator support.

7) The moon on a stick.

8) A pony.

Character Animation tools I'm assuming are already in the oven, so I haven't really mentioned them.

parm
09-19-2008, 12:27 PM
I've thought of something I would like from maya, I would like the sew and 'move and sew' tool. That's very useful for laying out atlas mapped meshes. The ability to select UV shells (which we have in LW via a plugin) should also be in there.

I would really like Maya's snapping system in Lightwave. MM gesture x,c or v, (grid, curve or vertex), is nigh on perfect.

IRML
09-19-2008, 12:51 PM
I would love for smoothing to be completely separate from surfaces, just have a separate set of groups for setting up smoothing and then never have to worry about messing it up with the surfacing again

I always thought the current way was a stupid way of doing it, having the surface editor clogged up with duplicates of the same surface just for smoothing purposes is very inefficient, so I hope to see this changed in 10

calilifestyle
09-19-2008, 12:51 PM
LoL i remember when i 1st came to this place i think you guys had a post if LW 9 doesn't .... I was just getting into lightwave 8. All i know is that i was a max user and i have to say LW doesn't even have FFD boxs. max 2.1 had it. i mean you guys are right to a point that LW need to improve or users will just move on. There's few thing that max 2-3 had that to this day lightwave doesn't have.

lardbros
09-19-2008, 01:02 PM
LoL i remember when i 1st came to this place i think you guys had a post if LW 9 doesn't .... I was just getting into lightwave 8. All i know is that i was a max user and i have to say LW doesn't even have FFD boxs. max 2.1 had it. i mean you guys are right to a point that LW need to improve or users will just move on. There's few thing that max 2-3 had that to this day lightwave doesn't have.

BUT there are also things that lightwave has had since day one, and max hasn't got... or has only JUST got.

The new materials in max 2009. WOW, you can edit map properties like contrast and brightness.... all without going to photoshop. Lightwave has had this ability for a LOOOOONG time.

Also, lightwave has the 'ability' of having a good material editor. I still think max's surface editor is the poorest implementation of surface editing i've seen in ANY package. It truly is abysmal.

I use max at work, so i have a good, if not better understanding of it than lightwave. But i prefer to use lw at home... it's just easier to get nicer results. Oh, and LW doesn't have so many 'this nice feature has been added... oh but it doesn't work if you use mental ray, or if you use these lights'. I feel LW is getting a nicely tightened integrated renderer, and atleast everything works with all the lights.

Ivan D. Young
09-19-2008, 01:22 PM
I would like to see support for Direct X 10.1. Micorsoft has already said that Direct X 11 will support real time Subpatches and possibly real time Displacements, and how would that not help with speeding up work flow? I know this is a "Pandora's Box" but if it was doable, why not? I am afraid that OpenGL may not be there for awhile.

jin choung
09-19-2008, 02:03 PM
I would love for smoothing to be completely separate from surfaces, just have a separate set of groups for setting up smoothing and then never have to worry about messing it up with the surfacing again

I always thought the current way was a stupid way of doing it, having the surface editor clogged up with duplicates of the same surface just for smoothing purposes is very inefficient, so I hope to see this changed in 10

totally agree and i've been harping on this one for suuuuuuuuuch a looooooooooooooong time....

vertex normals are not rightfully a surface property... it is an object/mesh property... in lw's system, it would probably make the most sense to have a edge smoothing VMAP.

yeah, this is a niggling thing that's been eating at me for a very long time too.

jin

Cageman
09-19-2008, 02:13 PM
vertex normals are not rightfully a surface property... it is an object/mesh property... in lw's system, it would probably make the most sense to have a edge smoothing VMAP.

jin

Totaly agree!

jasonwestmas
09-19-2008, 02:18 PM
Yeah that smoothing in lightwave is for the stone age. Some times I like to model things for backgrounds low poly and getting the smoothing right is not fun.

IMI
09-19-2008, 03:33 PM
Also, lightwave has the 'ability' of having a good material editor. I still think max's surface editor is the poorest implementation of surface editing i've seen in ANY package. It truly is abysmal.



My wife uses max at work and has tried to teach it to me at home, when I'm interested... which isn't all that often.
Out of all the max things I know (which is to say, not alot), its material editor is the thing I know best. It's workable, it's doable... with enough manipulation, blood, sweat and tears, one can even make something that looks good, but.... jeez-o-man, to say it's "abysmal", compared to LW's Surface Editor, is a serious understatement. ;)

geothefaust
09-19-2008, 03:45 PM
Thanks for the link Jason! I very much appreciate it! :)

On the topic of max... I haven't touched that thing since early 2002, or some where in there. Last version I used didn't even have the character studio thing that was extra (but later added). I think it was version 3.

Andyjaggy
09-19-2008, 03:54 PM
Agree. Out of all the packages I have used, I enjoy surfacing and texturing inside LW the best. Not just a little but A LOT better.

I agree with the smoothing though, it should be a mesh property, not a surface property.

geothefaust
09-19-2008, 05:13 PM
Things like mesh properties (ddisplacements, etc) should all be very close to the surfacing window. In fact, why not have another tab on the F5 window that has all the mesh related information? Clip maps, displacements, etc etc... In one area, near the surface properties would be great.

Titus
09-19-2008, 06:24 PM
Things like mesh properties (ddisplacements, etc) should all be very close to the surfacing window. In fact, why not have another tab on the F5 window that has all the mesh related information? Clip maps, displacements, etc etc... In one area, near the surface properties would be great.

I find annoying the mesh properties being part of the scene and not the object.

Dodgy
09-19-2008, 09:32 PM
The snapping is okay, but I find it annoying that if you select a line of points in the x axis, then move them in the x, they all snap to the same x coordinate. Why not just snap the first point and keep them the same spacing? Plus it jumps to the cursor rather than snapping to the nearest grid point to the points. Really really stupid implementation.

geothefaust
09-19-2008, 11:34 PM
I find annoying the mesh properties being part of the scene and not the object.

:dito: Hey I'm with you there. I had a hard time when I came to LW trying to figure it out. Glad I finally did.

Stooch
09-20-2008, 12:25 AM
1) Render layers. For any professional outfit perfect render layers is where its at. And i dont mean clunky POS layers. I mean it should be a matter of adding items to a layer and making it a "shadow pass", "occlusion pass", "beauty pass", "diffuse pass", "custom pass" etc. it should be no more than 2 steps for the most common passes.

2) Consolidation. ACtually this should be #1. No more reduntant tools. Hide em, do whatever but i want a context sensitive interface that can figure out what i want to do based on what i have selected. This goes way beyond modeling. I want the programmers to sit and think, what can we assume based on the information given to us. What tools is the artist using, what does he have selected. etc. lets reduce the hand holding to the minimum and have LW be as smart as possible.

3) New plugin interface. If its a plugin i want it to show up as a node. it should have outputs and inputs but i should eb able to connect it to anything imaginable. i want to write nodes easily and quickly, make it fool proof. But I dont want to see a clusterfuck of nodes either. lets think about common uses for nodes and make nodes that will result in the cleanest setups possible. lets generate nodes for the user whenever its obvious that this form of history is beneficial for the current task (ie lathe tool)

4) node containers. complex node highearchies distilled into simple ones. Nuff said.

5) full nodal integration with everything. especially volumetrics and motion modifiers. oh yeah make those particles a part of the nodal way of setting things up. Gravity = node. Wind = node. etc. i should be able to get VERY specific with what i want particles to do but it shouldnt be a programming excersize (NOT BY DEFAULT THAT IS! AT THE END OF THE DAY I DO WANT PER PARTICLE PROGRAMMING THAT IS EASY, CONSISTENT AND CLONEABLE)..

6) referencing, robust, easy to update, easy to manage. lock down, update rigs in the middle of animation, etc. Think about large teams using LW for complex productions.

7) non linear animation, manage and blend animation loops easily, copy and paste animation between dissimilar rigs. manage mocap data. blend dissimilar animations. drive animation clips based on world velocity. use dynamics to blend animation with simulation.

8) multithread everything. And i mean everything. I dont EVER want to have LW slow down to a crawl as it chugs away, yet if upon opening the task manager only see 1 core in use. The criteria is simple, if its not real time, it better be multi threaded.

Basically, this is what I am doing currently for effects work. In maya mel script, im writing rigs that perform very extensive functions, they setup render passes, they trigger complex procedural animation, they allow me to drop in my effects rigs into a scene, duplicate them at will and maintain all of the expression connections, render pass memberships, quick selection sets, render layer memberships, etc. I want to rig a scene and various performance opitmizations as efficiently as possible. i want to blow away tedious work and replace it with a slim, efficient workflow that will make large studios **** themselves when they find out that all this work was done by one guy. I have pulled this feat off before but it is getting more and more difficult for LW to hold up the efficiency end of the spectrum. requiring more and more manual labor to keep up with the competition.

starbase1
09-20-2008, 01:53 AM
I see a lot of powerful and interesting suggestions for deep change.

But I also see a lot which would seriously break compatibility with the current and older versions, and most certainly break a load of older plug-ins.

So this leads to the question, how much damage to existing functionality would you be willing to accept as the price for this? And how long would you be prepared to wait?

The Freddy Mercury response, (I want it all! I want it now!), is appealing but not exactly practical!

Nick

Cageman
09-20-2008, 02:32 AM
I see a lot of powerful and interesting suggestions for deep change.

But I also see a lot which would seriously break compatibility with the current and older versions, and most certainly break a load of older plug-ins.

So this leads to the question, how much damage to existing functionality would you be willing to accept as the price for this? And how long would you be prepared to wait?

The Freddy Mercury response, (I want it all! I want it now!), is appealing but not exactly practical!

Nick

To be totaly honest here, I think (and hope) that LW9.5.x is the last legacy LW release. No more backward compatibility... don't even think about that. It will just constrain the developers. LW needs to move forward, and the users should too. You always have LW9.x if you need to do something that requires that functionality (such as open up an old project).

I rather see an export plugin written for LW9.x so that one can transfer assets into LW10, than have the developement of LW10 to be constrained to the past...

lardbros
09-20-2008, 02:46 AM
To be totaly honest here, I think (and hope) that LW9.5.x is the last legacy LW release. No more backward compatibility... don't even think about that. It will just constrain the developers. LW needs to move forward, and the users should too. You always have LW9.x if you need to do something that requires that functionality (such as open up an old project).

I rather see an export plugin written for LW9.x so that one can transfer assets into LW10, than have the developement of LW10 to be constrained to the past...

I'm in this boat too. Look at 3dsmax releases. Nearly EVERY release, they break all of their plugins, so the developers re-release them with an update. (Some do work if you copy them over, but occasionally they'll all be broken.

Newtek needs to do this... it keeps the developers on their toes, and forces them to update their stuff. LW has some cool plugins that may go wonky in v10, but hey... i'd rather that than everything stagnating in the 9.5 ways.

Ztreem
09-20-2008, 03:25 AM
To be totaly honest here, I think (and hope) that LW9.5.x is the last legacy LW release. No more backward compatibility... don't even think about that. It will just constrain the developers. LW needs to move forward, and the users should too. You always have LW9.x if you need to do something that requires that functionality (such as open up an old project).

I rather see an export plugin written for LW9.x so that one can transfer assets into LW10, than have the developement of LW10 to be constrained to the past...

I agree, we need to go into the future not stay in the past. Just make a importer for old objects and scenes and move on, break everything and rebuild it and make it shine.

Lightwolf
09-20-2008, 03:55 AM
I'm in this boat too. Look at 3dsmax releases. Nearly EVERY release, they break all of their plugins, so the developers re-release them with an update. (Some do work if you copy them over, but occasionally they'll all be broken.
That's a bit of a difference though, Max usually has SDK changes, but no SDK re-write.
Which means you adjust your code but don't need to re-write the whole plugin (and adapt it to a new architecture).
In some cases the SDK was compatible but only the binaries weren't. Which means you just compile again with a new compiler and that's it (no coding required).
So, the question is, how far should the changes go? Would you rather wait for a week or two for an existing plugin to be ported... or a year or two?

Newtek needs to do this... it keeps the developers on their toes, and forces them to update their stuff.
Looking at the past you'll see plenty of plugins not being updated. Commercial vendors might do it differently, charging for updates due to host changes might be a viable solution.
It will also make it a lot harder to keep plugins compatible to a wide range of LW versions - but we might just need to get used to having to run the latest LW to run the latest version of a plugin...

Cheers,
Mike

Edit: P.S. I wouldn't mind a radical change for 10, it needs to happen. However, that should be the last "radical" change for some time.

lardbros
09-20-2008, 03:59 AM
That's a bit of a difference though, Max usually has SDK changes, but no SDK re-write.
Which means you adjust your code but don't need to re-write the whole plugin (and adapt it to a new architecture).
In some cases the SDK was compatible but only the binaries weren't. Which means you just compile again with a new compiler and that's it (no coding required).
So, the question is, how far should the changes go? Would you rather wait for a week or two for an existing plugin to be ported... or a year or two?

Looking at the past you'll see plenty of plugins not being updated. Commercial vendors might do it differently, charging for updates due to host changes might be a viable solution.
It will also make it a lot harder to keep plugins compatible to a wide range of LW versions - but we might just need to get used to having to run the latest LW to run the latest version of a plugin...

Cheers,
Mike


Fair points... im not coder so i don't know the ins and outs of it all. But the fact that stuff just needs recompiling for max makes sense, and wouldn't take much time i'd imagine.

As for lightwave, i think there has to be changes in order for things to move forward. But then people like you who make commercial plugins are stuck because you constantly have to rewrite to support moving tools. Would this 'moving the goal-posts' constantly actually stop you from bothering to develop?

Lightwolf
09-20-2008, 04:11 AM
Fair points... im not coder so i don't know the ins and outs of it all. But the fact that stuff just needs recompiling for max makes sense, and wouldn't take much time i'd imagine.
Well, it takes time, testing, etc... and is something that most Max vendors charge for.


As for lightwave, i think there has to be changes in order for things to move forward. But then people like you who make commercial plugins are stuck because you constantly have to rewrite to support moving tools. Would this 'moving the goal-posts' constantly actually stop you from bothering to develop?
Yes, if it gets too painful I'd consider alternatives. We've got users that go down to LW 8.x and need to cater for them as well (then again, maybe I should just forget about them)...
Just using the latest and greatest SDK would be the easiest way of course. But how many people out there use LW 9.5 only? (even worse now: There is no official 9.5 release for OSX at the moment).

After all, I'd like to push features as well, but if more time will be spent to catch up with LW... And if you look at the small amount of commercial LW developers to start with... *shrugs*

I probably doesn't affect free plugins as much, as you can't (and rightfully don't) expect them to provide the same level of support.

Cheers,
Mike

Dodgy
09-20-2008, 04:14 AM
Nope, if they go for the big one, then the sdk should mostly be fixed then, and only little changes are needed for additions.. All plugins won't work, but plugins rebuilt for the new system should work pretty much for the next few years like most of the LW plugins have done from 6 to 9...

lardbros
09-20-2008, 04:16 AM
Well, it takes time, testing, etc... and is something that most Max vendors charge for.



Well, maybe this is the biggest issue for your guys who are developers? Because at my workplace we use tonnes of plugins for 3dsmax. None of them have charged for their updates to the newer versions of max. That includes fumefx, vr4max... can't think of the rest, but nearly all i can think of haven't. So this means you guys could be putting in lots of development for little or no cash, if you were to go this same route.

BUT, lightwave releases are still relatively slow compared to the big ones releasing point upgrades every year. But in the amount of actual changes, i think lightwave is undergoing a tonne of facelifts.

Lightwolf
09-20-2008, 05:17 AM
Well, maybe this is the biggest issue for your guys who are developers? Because at my workplace we use tonnes of plugins for 3dsmax. None of them have charged for their updates to the newer versions of max. That includes fumefx, vr4max... can't think of the rest, but nearly all i can think of haven't.
Ah, o.k., that seems to have changed in the past few years then. I suppose they are nothing but re-compiles with the new Max SDK then.

BUT, lightwave releases are still relatively slow compared to the big ones releasing point upgrades every year. But in the amount of actual changes, i think lightwave is undergoing a tonne of facelifts.
While that is true, a big uprade also allows third parties to break compatibility. Breaking with point releases is harder to communicate.
And the LW SDK has had more breaking changes in the 9.x series than it did between 6.0 to 8.x.

Cheers,
Mike

lardbros
09-20-2008, 05:34 AM
Ah, o.k., that seems to have changed in the past few years then. I suppose they are nothing but re-compiles with the new Max SDK then.


But it's not really surprising because the feature lists for max have been lacklustre for the past few years.




While that is true, a big uprade also allows third parties to break compatibility. Breaking with point releases is harder to communicate.
And the LW SDK has had more breaking changes in the 9.x series than it did between 6.0 to 8.x.

Cheers,
Mike

...and this is good for users, and pretty bad for developers. Just hope all you lightwave plugin guys stick at it, otherwise we're in a world of sh*t.

starbase1
09-20-2008, 06:45 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

Lightwolf
09-20-2008, 06:45 AM
...and this is good for users, and pretty bad for developers. Just hope all you lightwave plugin guys stick at it, otherwise we're in a world of sh*t.
Well, it is good for developers as well... It might just make it tougher to keep plugins compatible across multiple versions which in turn makes it tougher for the users... and might also affect sales.

As I said before though, I'm all for breaking changes in 10.x.

Cheers,
Mike

Bog
09-20-2008, 07:16 AM
To be totaly honest here, I think (and hope) that LW9.5.x is the last legacy LW release. No more backward compatibility... don't even think about that. It will just constrain the developers. LW needs to move forward, and the users should too. You always have LW9.x if you need to do something that requires that functionality (such as open up an old project).

Mmph. This makes a lot of sense, actually. If the existing paradigms are bunging up forward progress, then I can live with them being ditched. For a while.

Yeah, I just died a little inside typing that, but all the plugins in the world won't help if the core systems stay as slow and kludgey as they feel at the moment. Don't get me wrong, I'll be upgrading anyway and can't see a future without LightWave. But there are places where it feels kinda like I'm towing a cartload of very, very heavy red-and-white chequered Boing balls, which is holding back the scrummy new hotness.

I loved Stooch's nodal Vision of the Future, that seems like a very sensible way of bringing about the tool-communication that I've harped on about. If we have to trash all those legacy tools to get the main systems working smoothly, then that's the price we have to pay. A more closely integrated SDK, where all the tools have inputs and outputs accessable, would make updating those plugins which are still Studio Necessities a lot easier.

I feel like I've just made a hamburger from Sacred Cow typing all this, but I love using this software, and plan to keep doing so in future. I think One Big Upheaval would be easier for the 3rd party guys (self included) than a bunch of incremental steps which break things differently each time.

robertoortiz
09-20-2008, 08:36 AM
I agree that a tighter integration between Lightwave and the plugins is in order.


I feel that nodes are a way to help streamline the plug ins.



Another revolutionary change I would suggest is moving toon shading to the forefront.:
(and this goes straight to the stronger Adobe support)

If Newtek wants to receive love letters from graphic designers and 2D animators (the kind that use Adobe Illustrator, and Flash/Toonboom for 2D animation) they would provide stronger support for vector formats like SVG, Flash etc...

.
Specifically in the rendering part.
This means that toon rendering instead of being an afterthought, it should be moved to the forefront as a RENDER MODE: (like Wire-frame,Quick-shade,Realistic)
I would call it:ToonShade


Some of the vectors format this type of rendering should support are:

Illustrator.eps
Illustrator.ai
svg.svg
and Shockwave Flash"



I know a lot of graphic artists who would benefit greatly from this.

robertoortiz
09-20-2008, 08:40 AM
Duplicate post

starbase1
09-20-2008, 09:54 AM
Duplicate post
__________________
This message does not reflect the opinions of the US Government, CG Networks or CGTALK.com. The opinions expressed on this posting are on my own volition.

Hmmm... Interesting.

So the US government think that there is NOT a duplicate post?

robertoortiz
09-20-2008, 10:07 AM
They pay my salary, gotta follow the rules.
Even DC people post duplicates.
:)

jin choung
09-20-2008, 03:12 PM
I feel like I've just made a hamburger from Sacred Cow typing all this, but I love using this software, and plan to keep doing so in future. I think One Big Upheaval would be easier for the 3rd party guys (self included) than a bunch of incremental steps which break things differently each time.

that's always been my position.

leave lw9.99 as the final legacy version that maintains compatibility for the vast amount of plugins already available. the lastest bugfreest version of the past. perpetually viable and available (kinda like the last softimage compared to xsi... only constantly have it either available or free to new buyers of the new version).

but this thread is about assuming that doesn't happen.

assuming there is not the resources to break everything and start from scratch. assuming there is not a revolutionary change that completely abandons old infrastructure that holds us the past.

again, a ground zero rewrite is NOT a trivial task and newtek simply may not have the resources in terms of money, time and talent to do it. and when i say talent, i don't mean that as a slam... lots of people can fix and modify cars (or like me, computers) but not be able to build one from scratch.

the existing team is maintaining and renovating the house that hastings and ferguson built and it may well and truly be that starting from scratch is NOT possible.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

i started this thread as basically a way of coming to grips with that. what i had hoped for 10 may not be possible.

so if is impossible to go for my ideal, what would keep me (and you guys) interested in lw still.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

but yah, the continually breaking of plugins is a BIG PROBLEM. it makes flay.com less and less of a valuable resource... especially since a lot of plugins are NOT maintained.

and lw is very heavily dependent on plugins.

this may be an unavoidable problem though.

jin

Jim M
09-20-2008, 03:54 PM
leave lw9.99 as the final legacy version that maintains compatibility for the vast amount of plugins already available. the lastest bugfreest version of the past.

nice to dream isn't it...

........


Consider this....... "New-Tek" ....

Glad I got that off my chest...

mccabejc
09-20-2008, 10:24 PM
Speaking of a grand rewrite, I could have sworn that some years ago Newtek was talking about how they were in the midst of a complete rewrite of LW, and boy oh boy the new features would come a lot quicker and easier as soon as they were done.

Am I mis-remembering?

jin choung
09-20-2008, 10:59 PM
there was lots of talk like that. a lot of that work is in lw now.... i've never heard of a complete rewrite in the works but they did talk alot about doing some major revisions to the architecture....

it's just that that work is probably not as major as many of us would like.

anyway, i'm over it. as i said, if we're not gonna tech up, i'll be happy if we just go soviet on this puppy.

jin

toby
09-20-2008, 11:11 PM
Something else that would single-handedly make me want to upgrade - support for streaming texture maps - the thing that Renderman and Lightwolf's Infinimap do - allowing you to use gigs and gigs of textures. I'm tired of LW choking on maps that are still too small for rendering HD.

I'd buy Infinimap yesterday if I still used lw in production -

geothefaust
09-20-2008, 11:17 PM
I remember NT talking about a complete re-write. It was around the time just before LW9 came out.

Err, yeah. GO SOVIET!

Lightwolf
09-21-2008, 04:06 AM
and lw is very heavily dependent on plugins.
Well, architecturally so are all the other packages... except that the plugins are a part of the box and developed by the core developer team.

...which is why a solid SDK is so important, the age of monolithic apps has been over for some time.

Cheers
Mike

jasonwestmas
09-21-2008, 08:14 AM
I only heared a completed "Core" rewrite. I never heared anything in reguards to completely replacing Legacy but obviously that will have to be done some time in the near future. Unless we want a big bloated pig of a program.

jin choung
09-21-2008, 01:45 PM
Well, architecturally so are all the other packages... except that the plugins are a part of the box and developed by the core developer team.

...which is why a solid SDK is so important, the age of monolithic apps has been over for some time.

Cheers
Mike

sure but the INCLUDED thing makes all the difference. then, if the developer alters the app so that it breaks the included plugins, they fix the plugins.

my point is that with lw, as we progress in this incremental fashion, we leave a lot broken third party (and frequently unmaintained, and frequently very useful) plugins in their wake.

jin

geothefaust
09-21-2008, 01:56 PM
...Which I'm OK with. It must happen in the name of progress.

jin choung
09-21-2008, 02:05 PM
yeah we all MUST be ok with that...

but that's the problem though, with incremental upgrades it's NOT like they're saying "ok let's break everything that doesn't make sense and do a new, completely ideal implementation"... even though they DO end up breaking things as they change their code, they are HELD BACK by trying to maintain as much compatibility as possible. LEGACY holds them back.

i'm just comparing our current strategy of incremental upgrading with the idea of making a CLEAN BREAK with 9.99x... the final legacy version that will exist in perpetuity and be the "compatible lw" that remains compatible with all the old plugins... and then 10 can just break everything, forget legacy and get a fresh start.

alas, again, that's what i think will NOT happen but i'm just pointing out what i perceive to be the (inevitable) problem with the current strategy.

jin

bobakabob
09-21-2008, 02:17 PM
as i said, if we're not gonna tech up, i'll be happy if we just go soviet on this puppy.

jin


"Go Soviet"? Cool.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/library/report/2007/2001_319-Soviet-lunar-1963-agitprop-poster.jpg

http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/library/report/2007/TotheStars-matchbox-cover-1963.jpg

http://www.americanthinker.com/Madison%20commie%20nostalgia.jpg