PDA

View Full Version : The future of LW on mac...



Karl Hansson
08-12-2003, 08:19 AM
I know that there are other threads that includes this subject. If you think this thread is not needed just say so and I remove it. My thought is that you all can post your concerns about macs future with LW...if any... and I'll drop chuck a PM to make sure he knows about this thread and hopefully he will comment on some of our concerns. PLEASE LETS KEEP THIS THREAD CIVILIZED, NO PERSONAL ATTACKS OR PLATFORM WARS.

I get the feeling that Newtek is fixing to dump us. Any one else got this feeling?
There is alot of things that makes me think that. One thing is that all the mac people seems to have left Newtek. Another is Newtek failing to respond on peoples concerns on this forum. I think alot of the riot going on at the Mac LW forum could have been laid to rest alot earlier if someone at Newtek had made a comment on the issues.

Nakia
08-12-2003, 08:52 AM
It will not be shocking if Newtek drop Mac support. They drop support for other platforms the LightWave ran good on. Like SGI and the more recent Amiga. One time LW ran on SGI, Sun, DEC, Amiga, PC, and Mac. heres and old link to a review
http://3dtoday.com/Reviews2000/Prev/lightwave56/default.asp

Newtek dropping SGI support is a real big one I think. It ran great on SGI boxes yes SGI cost more then your average Kia car.
Maybe its more cost effective to just support one platform?

Another thing we must ask ourself what is the most widely used version of LW in production? I heard 5.6 is still widely used. Also are Macs the most widely used 3D boxes in Production? These might be the numbers that Newtek look at.

I think to really make some noise the Mac users need to really turn the Mac version inside out. We need get serious on making our on Plugins, bang out Lscripts and techniques geared to the Macs. So that way if LW 7.5 is the last we see it will be loaded with a lot of Mac only kick @$$ Plugins.
The SGI LW users still support themselves without Newtek help. That one thing about SGI users they stick it out make their own stuff happen. If you look at the making of Pearl Harbor you will see a SGI LW 5.6 being used.
Heres an SGI LW site
http://www.matchmove.com/sgi/sgi.html

And my XEON 2.4GHz and my Powermac G4 blows away my little SGI o2 185Mhz box but I will never abandon it.

To sum it all up no matter what Newtek decides we Mac users need to form our own Support system. This is a real good time being that Apple is putting out better workstations and the Prices are within good buying range.

skippy
08-12-2003, 09:40 AM
It would seem to be expensive to have made a Mac version if NT didn't think they could profit from the expense and effort.

It also seems that, if NT believed in or saw a growing, viable Mac market for Lightwave, they'd be bringing it along a bit more actively, ie, toolset parity, optimizing the code for Mac, etc.

The recent omission of Mac users from being able to view recent videos featuring LW does seem like a sign of sick things to come.

We all know how we'd interpret things like this in a relationship. This IS a relationship of another kind.

Be nice to have a heads up, but you never get that when you're being dumped.

s

Nakia
08-12-2003, 09:52 AM
The one issue I have is with Apple. Seem like Apple pushed Maya for OS X more then anything else.
If Apple was pushing Lightwave like they did Maya things might be different. I know Maya is a big Film firm App, but how is Apple comparing to SGI and Windows verison of this app?
Alot of Apple users buy what Apple market towards them. I put some of the blame of a lack of support from Newtek on Apple.
Pretty Sure if Softimage made XSI for Apple it would be alover Apple website. But here LW for years was made for Apple and is real good Professional App, perfect for us Independent style artist that Apple attracts. You even see more Cinema 4d info on Apple web site. Cinema 4D is the only other App I will use on Apple besides good Ol Lightwave 3D.
We Apple heads need to "Think Different" and Push for our own Community to make noise not only in the LW world but in the 3D world in general.

TyVole
08-12-2003, 10:06 AM
Originally posted by skippy

Be nice to have a heads up, but you never get that when you're being dumped.

s

Most of the time you do get a heads up before getting dumped, you just don't always recognize the signs.

Karl Hansson
08-12-2003, 11:06 AM
I've droped Chuck an PM telling him about this thread. Hopefull we'll se him here soon. If not... well thats kind of an answer too...

Darth Mole
08-12-2003, 11:08 AM
LW 8 IS on the Mac - they're taking people's orders for 7.5 Mac and promise a free upgrade later in the year. I think it's fair enough along to assume that it will be released.

Since the big re-engineering of LW6/7, I don't know how hard it is to port the PC code over to OSX (I assume development takes place on PC and then just gets ported over). If it's not too hard, then all you need is one smart guy to recompile and you get another SKU for not much investment.

I can see why they dropped the Amiga; I can see why they dropped SGI; I can't (yet) see a clear reason for dropping the Mac - especially just as Apple develops its best EVER hardware and has the best ever OS.

I just hope that LW8 ends the OS9 version - I'd hate to think of NT putting ANY time into developing for a dead OS.

ackees
08-12-2003, 01:15 PM
Yes, there is that feeling of decay, I have seen many Mac apps go so you can always see the signs, 8 may be the last Mac vers. Luxology may have a trick up their sleeves knowing that the Mac LW will end they push their new app on the Mac to have a guaranteed sales revenue as Mac people look elsewhere. Perhaps the future is pick and mix, do not get too attached to anything, at the slightest hint of trouble be prepared to move to something else. Apple like to take care of its ship, if NT makes the right noises then apple would respond (after all the Mac is not awash with 3D apps, apple needs NT more than NT needs apple), If NT goes belly up on the Mac I am sure apple will promote something else to fill the gap (again apple may know something that we dont).
I say you are right the smart money says NT is cooling on Mac, the thing is not if they pull the plug but when will they pull the plug? I hate buying upgrades only to find the thing discontinued.

Chuck
08-12-2003, 02:25 PM
Originally posted by ackees
Yes, there is that feeling of decay, I have seen many Mac apps go so you can always see the signs, 8 may be the last Mac vers. Luxology may have a trick up their sleeves knowing that the Mac LW will end they push their new app on the Mac to have a guaranteed sales revenue as Mac people look elsewhere. Perhaps the future is pick and mix, do not get too attached to anything, at the slightest hint of trouble be prepared to move to something else. Apple like to take care of its ship, if NT makes the right noises then apple would respond (after all the Mac is not awash with 3D apps, apple needs NT more than NT needs apple), If NT goes belly up on the Mac I am sure apple will promote something else to fill the gap (again apple may know something that we dont).
I say you are right the smart money says NT is cooling on Mac, the thing is not if they pull the plug but when will they pull the plug? I hate buying upgrades only to find the thing discontinued.

The "smart money" doesn't have a clue, then. Our plans for LightWave's future include both Mac and PC as our permanent platforms.

ackees
08-12-2003, 03:31 PM
Thanks chuck. But there has been a worrying silence, you know, better say nothing than say something bad sort of thing. I know you guys have been very busy, all hands to the pump, and I know you cannot waste time responding to every whim and fancy, but there have been some very serious concerns on the Mac side of things without any response from NT, not even we will be onto it ASAP. To cut to the chase, will future Mac versions be fully developed or will they be poorer cousins of the PC? Will we see this improvement in 8 or should we wait till 9 or even 10?

n the lighter side
This guy is doing some nice work

http://www.rowsby.com/personal_cg.html

Beamtracer
08-12-2003, 03:52 PM
It's nice to see Chuck in the Mac forum again!

There is never any doubt that LW8 will be released on the Mac. They have advertised it. They have to.

I'd just like to see Newtek become more inclusive of Mac users. It doesn't cost much to do this, and it would go along way to help customer relations.

Here's some suggestions...

1. All Lightwave promotions should be available to Mac users

2. All Newtek Lightwave-related videos should be viewable on both Windows and Mac. Quicktime is the best way to achieve this. The live-streams of the LW8 preview at Siggraph are one of many examples of Mac Lightwavers being excluded from the party. Note that the videos emanating from competing companies were cross-platform.

3. All web pages on Newtek's website should be tested on non-Internet-Explorer browsers (eg Safari, OmniWeb) as IE is no longer developed for the Mac. This is not difficult.

4. Lightwave tutorials on Newtek's website are often created by other Lightwave users. Before they are allowed on Newtek's website they should be vetted to make sure they are Mac compatible. They should use Lightwave out-of-the-box, and not necessitate the use of obscure 3rd party Windows-only plug-ins.

5 More enthusiasm and interest in the Mac. A certain (unnamed) rival company is currently showing lots of enthusiasm for the Mac, and doing this without any detriment to Windows users.



A lot of these points I mention would not cost Newtek very much to achieve. A good start would be to bring more Macs into Newtek's Texas office.

Maybe some of Newtek's executives should be on Macs. For example, if Mr Jennison used a Mac and was unable to view the Siggraph stream I think he would have let those responsible know it. Quickly.

Proton (Newtek's Lightwave "evangelist") should be made to use an Apple G5 for six months. This would increase his interest and awareness in the platform. He also looks after the tutorial pages, so it's a good way to make sure they work on the Mac.

Regarding content... if content works on the Mac it will most likely work on Windows too, which is not the case the other way around.

Documents should all be in PDF format, rather than Microsoft Word

Videos should be in either RealVideo or Quicktime format, rather than Windows media (which is not cross-platform, despite what Microsoft claims).

Have a look through Adobe's website. All their content is viewable on both Mac and Windows. Even Apple makes sure its website content is viewable on both Mac and Windows, as it's in their interests to do so.

Chuck
08-12-2003, 03:56 PM
In reply to Ackees: There's a sense in the forward-looking discussions of Marketing and Development that after the initial generation of [8], we want to look at taking better advantage of each platform. Right now, though, the team is just concentrating on getting the first iteration of LW [8] out the door, so concrete discussions and planning in that regard will come later.

Darth Mole
08-12-2003, 04:12 PM
Thanks for the reply Chuck - pretty short and to the point, but it lays to rest a lot of worries here.

And, after all, if none of us gave a rat's *** about LW, then the forums would be pretty quiet, wouldn't they?

ackees
08-12-2003, 04:54 PM
Yes thanks again Chuck. I would be very happy with the taking advantage of each platform bit. I think that will eventually mean some differences between Mac and PC, neither platform should be held back because of limitations in the other. For example, if there was a 64bit PC and no 64bit Mac it would be unreasonable to expect a 64bit Mac version but then the PC version should not be held back because of Mac limitations, and of course the reverse is also true. Mac users are so easy to please really, if it works well on the latest Mac without problems they are usually happy.
Out of inerest what do NT engineers do their raw code in (c++ or unix) and on what platform, also what is the machine code based on.

Chuck
08-12-2003, 05:16 PM
Originally posted by ackees
neither platform should be held back because of limitations in the other.

Oddly enough, those exact words were in a comment from one of the programming staff, and were in regards to some great potentials he felt were possible on the Mac due to some things he'd learned about it while broadening his particular experience to include that platform. Guess the Mac affects folks that way. :)

Chuck
08-12-2003, 05:19 PM
[i]Out of inerest what do NT engineers do their raw code in (c++ or unix) and on what platform, also what is the machine code based on. [/B]

I'll pass the question along to the engineers, but they may feel that's proprietary info.

js33
08-12-2003, 06:04 PM
Originally posted by ackees

Out of inerest what do NT engineers do their raw code in (c++ or unix) and on what platform, also what is the machine code based on.
Well if you take a look at the SDK you will see that Lightwave is programmed in plain C, not C++. There is no UNIX programming language so not sure what you meant there. Unix is mostly programmed in C as well. I remember Stuart having a dislike for using C++ which he felt did little but add overhead.

What platform do they use? Windows and Mac maybe.

What is the machine code based on? What do mean exactly?

The machine code is created when the C code is compiled so the machine code is for whatever platform it was complied on/for.

Cheers,
JS

MarcelVal
08-12-2003, 08:35 PM
Originally posted by Chuck
Oddly enough, those exact words were in a comment from one of the programming staff, and were in regards to some great potentials he felt were possible on the Mac due to some things he'd learned about it while broadening his particular experience to include that platform. Guess the Mac affects folks that way. :)

That seems to be exactly what is needed at Newtek, more broadening of their horizons vis-a-vis the Mac. I also get the feeling that with the departure of the Lux folk interest in the Mac among Newtek folk is at an all time low. I don't mean interest in selling Mac Lightwave, but personal interest in the Mac among the employees.

And Beam's list is right on the money. If 50% of Lightwave sales are going to Macs then 50% of the computers in the Lightwave group should be Macs!

In any case Chuck's response gives me some hope. I think LW8 is Newtek's last chance with me. I already have been looking at C4D and liking it a lot. Lightwave still rules my roost, but I am fed up with feeling like a second class citizen.

ackees
08-13-2003, 02:41 AM
Chuck there would be such a buzz if your engineers could really push the Mac to its limits, there is a feeling that a lot of Mac software only use a fraction of the available Mac power.

Well I am not completely across the coding thing but I know it has an impact .

I always thought that the core code for an app was authored on a specific machine and that a certain amount of raw machine code was used (not C to machine code but raw machine code), this code would then be the master for the app, run optimally on that machine as a benchmark, then the code would be adapted for other machines (platforms). Basically I am trying to understand the difficulties that NT engineers have making full use of the Macs OS and why, particularly the Mac ROMs (this is where the Mac power is, there are a lot of ROM functions that can take the weight off the main code).

MarcelVal, I think you will find that LW is the best Mac 3D app (currently anyway), and I think if NT really optimizes for the Mac it could be the best 3D app across all platforms.

mrunion
08-13-2003, 08:53 AM
ackees:

Usually nothing is coded in raw machine code anymore. I know there are exceptions, and maybe NewTek is using some. But for years compilers have been able to optimize code so efficiently and machines have gotten fast enough that the benifits of machine-coding peices of the app is not worth the expense and support. Many of the game engine have completely converted away from optimized, assembly language graphics routines.

Ade
08-13-2003, 09:35 AM
Originally posted by MarcelVal
That seems to be exactly what is needed at Newtek, more broadening of their horizons vis-a-vis the Mac. In any case Chuck's response gives me some hope. I think LW8 is Newtek's last chance with me. I already have been looking at C4D and liking it a lot. Lightwave still rules my roost, but I am fed up with feeling like a second class citizen.

Im testing maxons C4d myself, seems very mac-like, very fun to use like a mac, and even has mac in mind with the little things like a mac theme set.
I simply cannot wait nomore for this modeller bug to be fixed. Newtek spent most of their energies promoting a system from BOXX that uses a chip that wasnt meant for desktop sales and shows not increase over a P43ghz.

Saddens me to talk like this but its out of anger from another crash and productivity is dropping.
(I use FCP4+LW which demands higher than 10.2.4)

These type of posts are in the norm when someone feels neglected.

LW8 will be the last chance, it will get a purchase if I see the mac side has been catered for.

eblu
08-13-2003, 09:43 AM
Originally posted by ackees
Basically I am trying to understand the difficulties that NT engineers have making full use of the Macs OS....

i can speak to this.
without having ever seen the code,
lets say that 90 % of LW is platform agnostic, its C and it could essentially run anywhere... for arguments sake (really it could be anything). Well thats 90 % of the app that cannot be compromised by taking advantage of specific features in any given OS. OS X has amazing features and handy tools for Developers, but Lightwave already runs without taking advantage of them, without anyone having to attempt to learn these tools. And there is no perceived dramatic benefit to using these technologies. so there is no incentive to do so.

for example:
look closely at the lower right hand corner of the main LW window, you will notice a UI problem with the resize widget. It has not been accounted for in the layout of Lightwave's toolset.... it still works, sort of. So what we have is a sort of square peg situation, where Lightwave is made to fit pretty much "as is" on any given platform. take note, there are many technologies in Windows that are ignored as well, because they would compromise the app's platform agnostic integrity.

So its not that LW engineers are having difficulty, its that there is no incentive to do so. There is no obvious dramatic benefit to them to offset the damage to the process, the time it takes to research, and implement such platform specific niceties.

Jirapong
08-13-2003, 10:15 AM
I'm considering to move to CINEMA 4D. They seen to have every thing and work well with Mac. I bought LW 6.5 18 months ago and upgraded to 7.5. Now it seen to be hopeless for LW in Mac community while Maxn seem to be very promissing. The next Computer Arts magazine will give away C4D 6 XL with promotion for upgrading. I guess it would be $700 to $1200. If it $700, goodbye LW. Having 2 option , C4D and LW 7.5C is more secured than having only LW 8. Bodypaint R2 seem to be promising as well.
MODO seens to be a great OSX modeller too.

Ade
08-13-2003, 10:20 AM
Yes i read that too, a free C4d with that mag.
This is great promotion.
I cant wait for Luxxo to release their stuff too, wish the excitment was high here too.

ackees
08-13-2003, 10:40 AM
Mac engineers put a lot of resources into OS and UI development (probably greater than the whole NT LW budget) and ship excellent tools for developers, the same goes for Windows, there is no way NT can keep up with such resources and development by making their own OS (LW feels like an operating system sitting on top of another operating system and its beginning to hamper usage and development of LW). NT will have to conform but the question is can they and when, LW 8 or 9 or never. I would really like to know if NT plan to properly integrate the Mac LW, can someone at NT give some idea of your stance on this (immediate change may not be possible but I think many users would be happy with focused intentions. The worse thing is to say nothing).

TyVole
08-13-2003, 11:15 AM
C4D looks pretty nice, but when you add in all the modules (including hair), you're looking at almost $3,000, about $1,000 more than a similar Maya configuration and $2,500 more than upgrading your LW.

That free C4D promotion has a limited render resolution, although they didn't specify how limited.

eblu
08-13-2003, 12:25 PM
ackees,
I can empathize your position, but I think you have a little too much invested in faith and not enough invested in reality. The fact is that Nobody has to do anything, except pay taxes and die. So no, netwek doesn't Have to make Mac specific changes to Lightwave.

Now I'm not saying that there aren't a whole bunch of great features that would make any program easier to develop and better all around here. What I am saying is that the development of Lightwave is such that there is:
1. little or no developer interest in such technologies.
2. No incentive to use such technologies.
3. less value moving to these technologies than is perceived by the average user

there are a lot of things that I would like to see different in Lightwave, and I have in the past tried to get the developers excited about some of the tools you and I are talking about. But if you think That Newtek HAS to do anything to lightwave, then you are mistaken. If you need proof, just take a look at how excited this Mac forum is about owning LW8. Newtek is a business after all, and its the sales that count.

ackees I mostly agree with you in principal, just not your wording.

anyway, have a nice day
-eblu

mlinde
08-13-2003, 02:52 PM
So there's a lot of noise about whether Newtek will do OS specific stuff, and about how Newtek doesn't care (even though Chuck has come to allay our fears after a nice summer week... hopefully somewhere nicer than the baking West).

I'd like to see the following Mac specific updates following the initial release of Lightwave [8]:

1) A GUI LWSN. This is a long standing request on both platforms, but the Mac (until the release of OS X) was the last place to see a command line. If not an LWSN GUI, utilize drag and drop of scene files to launch mode 3, or of folders for mode 2 command directories.

2) True Open GL support. With all the noise coming from Cupertino (and accolades from SGI) Open GL shouldn't be so dog-gone slow on a Mac, nor should there be ANY OGL problems, unless Apple introduces bugs. I still can't view OpenGL previews on my Mac (with a 64 MB GeForce card) as well as I can on my PC (with a 16MB ATI card).

3) Better cross-platform file support. Too many features (from particles to surfaces) aren't coded utilizing the cross-platform code structure that the raw scenes and objects use. In addition, files shouldn't require opening and saving in a text editor. Utilize the filename extensions for real on the Mac.

4) A functional Hub. This little guy was a great idea with 6.0 Automatic incremental saves, easy object switching between modeler and layout are great features, but they don't work on the Mac.

As I think about it, I'll add to this list. I'd like to see Lightwave core functionality stronger and more stable than it has been in the OS X releases, that's my number one request. I think it's getting closer, but it shouldn't come with the requirement of buying a new computer, either. If I can run 7.5c on my PIII/450, I should be able to run it on my iBook. I can't, so maybe this should be addressed in [8]

fxgeek
08-13-2003, 03:42 PM
A true command line terminal based interface for LWSN wouldn't go amiss either.

Beamtracer
08-13-2003, 03:56 PM
There are two issues here:

1. The application itself... changes to the app are expensive to implement, but many of the suggestions (above) are sorely needed and worth the effort

2. Inclusion of Mac users into the Lightwave community... this is not very expensive to implement, but time and time again Newtek fails to do so. Once again, the example of the recent Siggraph videos.

ackees
08-13-2003, 04:15 PM
I am not sure if NT realise that no comment means a negative, Chuck has done what he could to be positive but it looks like a lot of people want more meat on the bone, detailed response stating future commitment to the Mac. The odd bits of LW 8 info has not put the worries to rest.

Ed M.
08-13-2003, 04:38 PM
What do you guys really expect NT to say? <Quick.. Say *something* to quiet the masses. >

From my time reading through the various posts on these forums, I'm guessing that this one particular thread will be hanging around a looooong time. Let's hope some good will come of it.

Hey, anyone know what happened to Mr. Ted Devlin? He was a wealth of useful information and insight. I enjoyed his posts. The last I remember, he was about ready to give-up on Lightwave too. That was during the SneakerNet discussions.

By the way, regarding SneakerNet... I'm sure Dean Dauger and John C. Welch are still available to help if a new approach is being researched and developed by the NewTek engineers.

--
Ed

Chuck
08-13-2003, 07:31 PM
Originally posted by ackees
I am not sure if NT realise that no comment means a negative, Chuck has done what he could to be positive but it looks like a lot of people want more meat on the bone, detailed response stating future commitment to the Mac. The odd bits of LW 8 info has not put the worries to rest.

We have a complete commitment to our future on the Mac. There are quite simply no grounds whatsoever for rumors to the contrary.

Chuck
08-13-2003, 07:45 PM
Originally posted by Beamtracer

2. Inclusion of Mac users into the Lightwave community... this is not very expensive to implement, but time and time again Newtek fails to do so. Once again, the example of the recent Siggraph videos.

Mike Guerra posted a link to the Mac version of the Microsoft codec that the stream was webcast with here on the forum. We plan to make sure that codec is linked from the streaming page itself next year. Last year, as I recall, the codec had an installer problem on one of the Mac OS versions; if that was not the case this year, then the fact is that the stream was available to Mac users unless they had a resistance to using a multi-platform standard that did not originate on the Mac. Understanding that this is an issue, a number of our staff have recommended to show planning staff and IT that we also find a way to implement streaming with both the Windows codec that we have to use in order to stream out of the VT system, and a Quicktime stream. That will likely have to be twinned and converted at the server, because the bandwidth from the show floor to the streaming server is likely to be only enough for one stream, as was the case this year. Our provider last year managed to do this for us late in the show last year, if I recall correctly, so it should be manageable.

Beamtracer
08-13-2003, 08:25 PM
Hi Chuck, thanks for your reply.

I think many Mac users wanted to see Newtek's live Siggraph stream but couldn't do it. I don't think it was a resistance to any particular media player.

You mention that Mike Guerra (of Newtek) posted a link for the Mac codec. Out of curiosity I'm searching for that post, but can't find it.

He has a post in the Toaster forum about how to stream on the internet:
http://vbulletin.newtek.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=9510

Here are all of Mike's posts. Most are in the Toaster forum:
http://vbulletin.newtek.com/search.php?s=&action=showresults&searchid=42547&sortby=lastpost&sortorder=descending

A lot of people tried to receive the stream using Microsoft's Media Player (for Mac) but failed. Out of about 30 available Windows codecs, Microsoft has ported only 2 or 3 to the Mac. This is why Windows Media is not a good cross-platform solution.

Also, Microsoft has not done any development of the Mac WindowsMediaPlayer for a long time. It is still stuck at version 7, when their Windows version is 9.

On Apple's Quicktime player, all the video codecs are fully supported on both Windows and Mac versions of the QT player.

Chuck
08-13-2003, 08:49 PM
I'll ask Mike where he posted - my information that he had done so was from his comments. As I mentioned, next year we will try to twin the stream, and we'll likely experiment with that in advance by doing some streaming here from NewTek.

Just curious - my own recommendation is that we do this for both NAB and SIGGRAPH. Some other folks have expressed that since NAB centers on the VT and offers only a limited amount of LW coverage, that there would not be interest from our Mac customers. Would that evaluation be correct?

Beamtracer
08-13-2003, 09:28 PM
I can only speak for myself, but I'd imagine that most Mac users are only interested in Mac software. Then again, if there was some exciting news about Lightwave at NAB they would be interested!

policarpo
08-13-2003, 10:11 PM
Hopefully it will be a Null issue next year as there are rumors that WMP9 will be ported to OSX this fall...

let's just hope that from then on MSoft will keep things consistent with the PC and OSX versions of their software. :)

Karl Hansson
08-13-2003, 11:25 PM
I could be wrong but does not Apple host streams? I remeber reading that somewhere. I mean if NT's streaming server wont be enough for two kinds of streams then maybe NT could have Apple host the QuickTime stream?

policarpo
08-13-2003, 11:29 PM
Originally posted by Karl Hansson
I could be wrong but does not Apple host streams? I remeber reading that somewhere. I mean if NT's streaming server wont be enough for two kinds of streams then maybe NT could have Apple host the QuickTime stream?
i think you are thinking about Akamai (http://www.akamai.com/)

Karl Hansson
08-13-2003, 11:53 PM
No I believe that Apple do offer this service too. I remeber when Steve Jobs introduced the quicktime streaming server apps he said that apple would host the streams for the users.

policarpo
08-14-2003, 12:08 AM
ok.

Beamtracer
08-14-2003, 07:04 AM
I don't know why it always seems so difficult to do a Mac compatible video stream. People are streaming out of their houses these days. This is consumer technology.

eblu
08-14-2003, 07:32 AM
Originally posted by Ed M.


Hey, anyone know what happened to Mr. Ted Devlin? He was a wealth of useful information and insight. I enjoyed his posts. The last I remember, he was about ready to give-up on Lightwave too. That was during the SneakerNet discussions.


the name "ted" was taken by ted lee(i think) when the new forums opened, so i changed my login to eblu. been here all along Ed.

i gave up on screamernet

serpicolugnut
08-14-2003, 10:55 AM
the name "ted" was taken by ted lee(i think) when the new forums opened, so i changed my login to eblu. been here all along Ed.


Nope, tedlee on the old forum has been serpicolugnut ever since the new forum debuted...

I should know - it's me....!

eblu
08-14-2003, 11:23 AM
i stand corrected.
but there is someone out there using the "ted" moniker

Ed M.
08-14-2003, 12:57 PM
Well, Ted (eblu), It's good to see that you're still around. As for SneakerNet, I think it's terminal.

As for the *air* around the Mac-LW forums, I get the same impression that many other Mac-users are getting -- only a matter of time before support for the Mac is dropped.

After what was revealed about LW8, I wouldn't surprised if Mac users waited until version 9 or 10 (if they even happen) before upgrading. I think many will wait until the app is coded to be more Mac-specific, taking advantage of what the hardware has to offer. Still, It would be silly to abandon 50% of the LW market now that a system like the G5 is out.

John Welch once told me the only way he felt NewTek could turn around their Mac business was to hire people who are thoroughly familiar with the Mac hardware (Chris Cox said the same thing) and the PowerPC architecture in general. That means some AltiVec/VMX *experts*. He also mentioned that it would be a good idea to bring some Mac-centric networking people aboard because it's more likely that they are proficient with networking on *various* platforms (i.e., Unix); whereas people specializing in Windows networks only tend to be proficient with what Windows demands. A few good Unix programmers wouldn't hurt either. But all this needs a conscious effort on NewTek's part and it doesn't look like anything is happening.

Has there been any word of new people being hired to fill the void left by those who departed the company? How familiar are they with the Mac, SIMD, OS X, and Unix? It's questions like these that come to mind. Anyone else have similar concerns? And if they are seriously thinking about a network-renderer/clustering solution, the Dr. Dean Dauger is their man. Period.

--
Ed

policarpo
08-14-2003, 01:05 PM
Those are all great points you address. Thanks for that Ed.

I sincerely hope that this thread is being taken seriously and that if anyone is reading this that they aren't chuckling or sliding us because we are too whiney.

We aren't being unreasonable by any stretch. If NewTek embraces the future of OSX as they should, it will only help sales on the PC side as well. I know that a lot of us now exist in a multiplatform environment, and innovations in the LW software arena must happen across the board.

Ed M.
08-14-2003, 01:35 PM
Here is an interesting article (I know that Beam will like it ;-):

http://www.sunspot.net/technology/custom/pluggedin/bal-mac081403,0,7977210.column?coll=bal-business-indepth

--
Ed

policarpo
08-14-2003, 01:43 PM
well, if it is true that history repeats itself, and if Apple started the desktop publishing revolution with the introduction of the first Macs...imagine what will happen now in the arena of Digital Content Creation.:D

ackees
08-14-2003, 05:31 PM
I really hope NT haven?t left it too late with their Mac development, I really do. I think there are going to be some hot developments in the 3D arena on the back of G5, and I hope NT can respond before they are blown out of the water. Apple has a way of leapfrogging with technology, and when they do that a number of software publishers get left behind, if NT can cut to the chase they will move forward with apple. The funny thing is if they have to drop out of the Mac then it wont be too long before the PC side of things get into trouble too, because everything is about to leap forward and that includes PC?s (even if they are a littler slower off the mark).
Remember DOS, remember all those who argued that the Mac UI was childish, then Microsoft licensed the Mac UI and created Windows (Windows is basically an out of date Mac interface. I wonder how much Apple makes from each sale of windows?). What Apple does is usually followed by the PC.

Chuck
08-14-2003, 06:59 PM
Originally posted by Ed M.
As for the *air* around the Mac-LW forums, I get the same impression that many other Mac-users are getting -- only a matter of time before support for the Mac is dropped.

--
Ed


That's not the case, Ed, and I suspect you actually know that perfectly well. We are completely committed to the Mac platform, and we've talked about the gains it has made as a portion of NewTek's LightWave customer base. The Mac has an incredible presence in digital content creation, and we see that growing, and we have every intention of not only participating in that but encouraging it by taking better advantage of the specific strengths of the Mac platform, especially as they contribute to user interface and workflow issues.

What hasn't changed is that even though we've maintained and advanced LightWave on the Mac for a heck of a lot of years now, even posting firsts such as the first professional 3D app on OSX, the same folks who years ago made dire predictions continue to do so, despite the lengthening record of our strong presence on the Mac.

ackees
08-15-2003, 03:00 AM
The thing is Chuck that a lot of this has happened on the Mac in the past, good software like LW developed for the Mac, but when the software fails to develop along with Mac developments or fail to mature on the Mac they then fail. This process doesnt happen overnight, everyone accepts that new Mac ports will have glitches but integration should improve (mature) over time. Everyone is afraid of yet another quick and dirty port to the Mac, something that crawls along in second gear. I would accept waiting a little longer for a Mac LW 8 that would be fully Mac integrated and taking advantage of all current Mac technology, if Maya can get hardware rendering working on the Mac I am sure NT can do much better because LW is better.

Ade
08-15-2003, 03:48 AM
Agreed and agreed. We all want to stay with LW mac but if it falls behind slowly what are we supposed to do or feel.. Even smaller compoanies like Maxon are making huge strides. Hardware support they got from nvidia now.

eblu
08-15-2003, 10:47 AM
i'll tell you what,
IF Netwek made a True, command line rendering utility app for os X, I'd write a controller app myself. Or better yet, I'll work with anyone who wants to help to develop an Open protocol for a controller- client system, and then Everybody can write compatible controllers/clients as needed.
lessee...
the command line renderer needs to take an argument like :
render sceneFilePath

with flags of course, for such things as pointing to prefs, pointing to the content dir, overriding the render settings including the output filename, etc...

it should give feedback during renders. (percentage done, which frame its working on etc...)

anybody else got any ideas for this?
btw: dont start in yet on the controller/client side stuff (rendezvous)... lets keep this concentrated on the command line utility features... ie: the things we want Newtek to take care of.

Ade
08-15-2003, 11:04 AM
NEWTEK could suprise everyone and either make a beta test program active or open source stuff like screamernet.

eblu
08-15-2003, 11:43 AM
screamernet would be much more robust in the open source community, but to protect IP, Newtek could easily make a True command line version for os X, leaving the networking and file behavior to the open Source community.

mlinde
08-15-2003, 11:50 AM
render scenefilepath [startFrame] [endFrame] [frameStep] -c -p -o

some of this is obvious, here are the definitions:

[startFrame]: which frame to begin with, default = 1

[endFrame]: which frame to end on, default = scene length

[frameStep]: the number of frames to skip (i.e. frameStep = 2 renders every other frame)

-c: the content directory location

-p: the preferences files location

-o: the output directory location

Although I like the idea of an override, that gets into a very complex set of arguments, including file formats, output formats, compression settings, and other issues I'm sure I'm not thinking of here.

Of course all of the options beyond scenefilepath would be optional, and if omitted the default settings (in the scene or LW preferences) would be utilized.

The commands between the rendering application and a controller application should be documented and clear as well. That's it's own mess though.

mlinde
08-15-2003, 11:58 AM
I think another thing to look into (for network rendering) is the concept of a "polling" render node, like in After Effects. If you install the AE "render engine" (which includes all the files/code to render) and start it, it regularly checks a pre-determined directory (any accessible location on the network) for files to render, and will start render and output to that directory when new files are added.

This would work best in concert with a controller system that can determine which nodes are rendering which files (and frames). In addition the controller could take completed frame data back from a node and add it into an animation file (if that was the chosen output format).

eblu
08-15-2003, 01:14 PM
mlinde,
my first impulse is to build a rendezvous hybrid controller/client app, that encapsulates the command line utility. This app would be essentially peer to peer, which means that each client would be able to control render jobs and act as nodes. so its important that the renderer be as focused on rendering as possible, and ignore anything that has to do with the network aspect of the problem. That should all be done by platform specific applications (giving rise to the possibility of drag n drop rendering). the polling thing would work best if done by the controller itself.

I would like to defend the complicated overrides. why not build them in? if they are optional, it can only be beneficial for the system going forward.

also, it occurred to me that the command line tool should report errors, like: "couldn't find file: filename" and wait for some type of response before the render cancels. that way a controller could report the problem and cancel the render, it could open up a dialog for the user to find the file, or it could run a find file command all by itself.

mlinde
08-15-2003, 02:23 PM
Originally posted by eblu
I would like to defend the complicated overrides. why not build them in? if they are optional, it can only be beneficial for the system going forward.

I'm not saying don't do it, I'm just saying it's a whole new ballgame when you do. I started to work through the variety of "override" options, and realized that the variety of things to change with an override blows this application WAY beyond render nodes. What gets overridden? Output types? File Formats? Resolution? Resolution multipliers? Anti-aliasing? These are the few possibilities I thought of just now. If you go back to Layout and look at the depth of information involved in changing these things, there is very little benefit to utilizing a render node with overrides vs. editing these preferences in Lightwave.

Beamtracer
08-17-2003, 04:59 AM
Eblu... maybe you should start a new thread to initiate a "think tank" about how a new network renderer should be designed. It would be easier to find as a separate thread.