PDA

View Full Version : Mac Core time line?



Kuzey
02-05-2009, 02:38 AM
Ok, the Mac version will be cocoa.......but will it be cocoa off the bat or do we wait for two years before it gets there?

If I join by March will it be a gold version of cocoa 64bit at the end of the year or will it still be a beta version or 32bit version??

What scares me is that LW9.6 will still be in development while work goes on the core, that tells me the core isn't production ready and the first year could be a waste of time and effort...if you know what I mean.

Also will this LW9.6 post gold version still be free, even if I don't pick up the core and will it be 64bit or are you guying just keeping it in production until the core is workable?

Kuzey

Darth Mole
02-05-2009, 03:34 AM
Well it 'ships Q4' so if that version isn't production ready - or at least useable - there'll be some angry customers.

I got the impression it's Cocoa right now - after all, what the point in writing any of it in Carbon which Apple is no longer supporting?

Oh, and one good thing I noticed: plug-ins are Mach-O bundles which means developers now write on plug-in which will work on PC, Mac and Linux. Mac user now have complete app parity! (Except that it'll probably run quite sweetly on Mac hardware with a nicer OS :-)

Kuzey
02-05-2009, 04:12 AM
Some things don't make sense...like Chilton keeping the UI bugs etc. in 9.6 because it meant less work for later on. Which is fine but, but I kinda expected the 9.6 64bit to be available soon.

Also, that means the core is still in the early stages, since they will continue the development of 9.6 along side the core.

I have this funny feeling...if William did the demo we would have seen it constantly crashing :hey:


Besides all that...it does look like a killer app :thumbsup:

Kuzey

Kuzey
02-05-2009, 04:19 AM
Also, the hardcore program should only really start after LWcore has gone gold.

Kuzey

Otterman
02-05-2009, 04:27 AM
I get the impression 9.6 64bit on the mac wont ever exist. A while ago there was Chilton talking about it fairly openly but that went quiet a longtime ago...and now we know why....they switched to develop core instead!

On one hand, Im pretty excited about the future of core! Ok the pricing struture is going to be a kick in the wallet for most, especialy the hobbists...but thats the price of raising the bar and becoming a pro-app thats going to be taken seriously....and 64bit for us maccies to!

....however,on the other hand, if all that 64bit luvlyness is only available through investing in core then i kinda feel cheated with my 9.6 investments! We mac users have had a raw deal if that is the case.

Anyways, exciting times nonetheless

Kuzey
02-05-2009, 04:51 AM
They are still going to develop 9.6, unless I misread something somewhere. So we could still get a 9.6 64bit version, who knows.

That's why I think the one year pricing structure should only start when LWcore is a solid release version. Otherwise, it'll look like they are pulling one over our eyes...if you still end up with a beta at the end of the year after paying up :D


Kuzey

ingo
02-05-2009, 04:53 AM
well the advantage of Mac OSiX 64Bit is not so big like it is for ms-windows, so i wont care if LW 9 will be 64Bit or 32Bit.

and that odd presentation from Jay and Captn Janeway in the Myst -environment wasn't worth the 13 days wait, marketing is still not Newteks strong point.

ELinder
02-05-2009, 05:08 AM
I suspect that we won't see a 64bit version of the UB, and they'll put the time into Core. What still isn't clear is the further bug fixes for 9.6. There were still a number of open bugs when 9.6 went gold. We need a solid version 9 to bridge the gap until Core is solid, which face the facts, with a ground up rewrite will take a lot of time.

Overall, I'm impressed with the Core possibilities (even tho the presentation stunk) and I will be upgrading as soon as possible, if for no other reason than to start the learning curve early.

Erich

Kuzey
02-05-2009, 05:35 AM
I hope Newtek doesn't take their time to respond :hey:

Kuzey

eblu
02-05-2009, 05:52 AM
Kuzey- its cocoa from day one.

to me, core looks like it was built from the ground up as THE 64bit LW. on the mac to get there, it made little sense NOT to re-write from scratch and get added benefit from a modern pipeline and a modern UI.

so, around the time LW was languishing and we were all bellyaching, it was decided to clean up and modularize LW, so the toolsets would all be more portable. remember when the renderer turned into a plugin? Core was part of the plan back then... oh , it may not have been called core, and that horrible "viral" campaign may not have been planned, but to me, Core seems like a natural evolution from where we were to where we should be. But, I did a feature request a few months ago, that is very similar to Core's feature list, maybe I'm just biased.

point is, Core looks like the only way LW could get to 64bit on the mac, I suspect that it IS already 64bit, but if not, its a switch to flip during compile rather than a whole host of changes.

what I find More interesting though, is Newtek's attempt to change its DNA. in the Core Manifesto, they talk about some of the technologies, some 3rd party, and they vehemently defend their choices against making in house versions. As users we don't care where the tech comes from, but Newtek is historically incapable of going to third parties, even for software that they themselves don't understand, hence some of the bizarre UI, that screamernet replacement that never shipped, and the windowing system of LW itself. This has got to be very hard on the company but I believe it is the most significant thing they've done in core. Newtek is selecting the best 3rd party software they can find where they need something that is not the LW team's specialization, and we are going to benefit. shortened dev cycles, less bugs, less overall code for Newtek to worry about, better compatibility, a larger trained dev pool to draw on... Newtek has made a crucial step in a very good direction, to speed up and smooth out the dev cycle, and give us a better value added.

Otterman
02-05-2009, 05:58 AM
I really hope we get 64 bit.. . I can't wait for the days when I'm chucklin to myself reminissing over the days when lightwave ran out of memory! 64bit is a huge win 4 me. . . I'm at the point that I might have to consider another platform or even other software if lightwave can't deliver. Abandoning my mac 4 a pc will break my heart and lightwave has been good to me. Perhaps chilton will shed some light on the matter now core is out the bag! Either way core is the future but I need to know my options now.

philthorn
02-05-2009, 08:47 AM
Yes, I'm a little concerned at the wording in the hardcore benefits about this...


Exclusive access to ongoing builds of LightWave CORE™
Special pricing
Shipping version of the LightWave CORE™ software scheduled for Q4 release
Continued updates to LightWave v9
First to receive the COCOA version of LightWave
Private community area with forums for interaction with one another and the LightWave CORE™ development team
Exclusive development presentations and updates
LightWave CORE™ training videos
VIP invitations to special events
Personalized membership card
Exclusive LightWave CORE™ t-shirt


First? - as in ... the COCOA version will come sometime after the initial beta?

... or First as in there's never been a COCOA version before this so get it now?

Dunno

Chilton
02-05-2009, 08:55 AM
Hi,

I'll have more detailed info for you shortly, answers to the above questions, and will answer any other MAC SPECIFIC questions you might have.

-Chilton

Ryhnio
02-05-2009, 09:34 AM
One question I have is the "charter membership"..... Will I only get upgrades to 10.x only when I am a member?

eblu
02-05-2009, 09:50 AM
seems to be a subscription service. you buy in, get all the upgrades for a year.
its not much different than what we already do, but if the updates don't keep coming, the value isn't there.

thats the part that concerns me.

philthorn, Lightwave as we know it has never been a full fledged Cocoa app. it gets a little murky because OpenGL is a Core Foundation (mac os X term) framework, but it Used to be a Carbon Technology (its been updated). Since OSX allows mixing and matching of the different frameworks (carbon, cocoa, OpenGl, etc...) for a long time it made little difference where Newtek was doing the bulk of its work. Carbon had the history, And had the closest ties to OpenGl so they stayed with that. Now however, great swaths of Carbon are being culled in favor of modern code, and Developers (all of them, remember Photoshop Is Not yet entirely Cocoa) are feeling the pressure of this change. Cocoa it is, from here on out.

And getting access to the first Cocoa Lightwave is simply getting Core during its beta Phase... which they call: HardCore. so you buy in, get access to the beta, and it is Cocoa.

Scazzino
02-05-2009, 10:23 AM
Hi,

I'll have more detailed info for you shortly, answers to the above questions, and will answer any other MAC SPECIFIC questions you might have.

-Chilton

Thanks Chilton! :thumbsup:

I'm trying my best to remain patient... but with all the frenzied hype flying around it's not easy... ;)

Kuzey
02-05-2009, 10:28 AM
Thanks Chilton! :thumbsup:

I'm trying my best to remain patient... but with all the frenzied hype flying around it's not easy... ;)


Ain't that the truth :D

Thanks Chilton, can't wait to hear and see more :thumbsup:

Kuzey

Otterman
02-05-2009, 11:42 AM
At last-a word from popa chilton. All this speculation bollox is doing my head in. We need order in the lw house! Kiddies b patient now-when has poppa chilton ever let us down!

Scazzino
02-05-2009, 11:56 AM
At last-a word from popa chilton. All this speculation bollox is doing my head in. We need order in the lw house! Kiddies b patient now-when has poppa chilton ever let us down!

Here here! :thumbsup:

I'm patiently sitting on my hands... eagerly waiting for the day that this message is finally banished from the Mac once and for all!

:bowdown:

damianallen
02-05-2009, 12:21 PM
Posted about this on the main Core thread, but hoped someone here has more of an idea:

The issue is that to make Core 64 bit, Newtek is required to use Cocoa (which they are), which is Objective C, quite a different beast to C++. That raises a concern about parallel Mac dev. It's a lot of effort to develop for Objective C as well as C++ (just ask Adobe, who have yet to release a 64 bit version of Photoshop on the Mac for that very reason).

Makes me wonder if releases will be in parallel.

And while it's good news to hear about the Mach-O bundle, I'm not sure how that could work on the Mac in 64 bit - surely if the developers write in C++ the code will execute in 32 bit, since OS X has no 64 bit C++.

So that could mean that even if developers can easily release on all platforms, the Mac version of plugins will only run in 32 bit, even with the 64 bit host.

Can anyone with mad Cocoa skills clarify?

Scazzino
02-05-2009, 12:36 PM
Can anyone with mad Cocoa skills clarify?

I'm sure Chilton can when he has time...

In the mean time though I don't think that C++ will be a big problem since "Apple’s Objective-C compiler allows you to freely mix C++ and Objective-C code in the same source file." (http://developer.apple.com/documentation/Cocoa/Conceptual/ObjectiveC/Articles/chapter_14_section_1.html#//apple_ref/doc/uid/TP30001163-CH10-SW1)

I think Adobe's problem has more to do with being deeply tied to the old Carbon libraries than a C++ issue... but that's just speculation of course...

eblu
02-05-2009, 01:10 PM
Posted about this on the main Core thread, but hoped someone here has more of an idea:

The issue is that to make Core 64 bit, Newtek is required to use Cocoa (which they are), which is Objective C, quite a different beast to C++. That raises a concern about parallel Mac dev. It's a lot of effort to develop for Objective C as well as C++ (just ask Adobe, who have yet to release a 64 bit version of Photoshop on the Mac for that very reason).

Makes me wonder if releases will be in parallel.

And while it's good news to hear about the Mach-O bundle, I'm not sure how that could work on the Mac in 64 bit - surely if the developers write in C++ the code will execute in 32 bit, since OS X has no 64 bit C++.

So that could mean that even if developers can easily release on all platforms, the Mac version of plugins will only run in 32 bit, even with the 64 bit host.

Can anyone with mad Cocoa skills clarify?


Objective C has been updated to include Objective C++, and its always been capable of mixing with C, and C++. Objective C is After all just an extension to C, which is what C++ is. Apple just updated OBJC to extend Both C and C++.

for our purposes though, its easier to say that Cocoa is compatible with C++, at worst case, and is essentially the same thing at best. if Newtek builds modern C++ code, it will work with cocoa.

adobe's problems are the "we can't turn this oil tanker around on a dime" problems. In this instance, having a small, lean company, with software under 500 megabytes, is a benefit.

rakker16mm
02-05-2009, 02:14 PM
Hi,

I'll have more detailed info for you shortly, answers to the above questions, and will answer any other MAC SPECIFIC questions you might have.

-Chilton

Cool! My question is this: Will Core run on my G5?

I am planning on upgrading to a new Tower. I am not sure when that is going to happen just yet, but I can afford Core and will probably by it early rather than later.

Chilton
02-05-2009, 04:54 PM
... writing it now, takes me awhile to write because I have to write in all caps, so my scanner can read it...

lwanmtr
02-05-2009, 05:17 PM
... writing it now, takes me awhile to write because I have to write in all caps, so my scanner can read it...

use a crayon like you usually do...hehe.

I think 64bit Cocoa is the main thing that Mac users are wanting, besides all the tools and toys that should come with Core...

Of course, that being said....

Will there be *any* differences between the 3 platforms? Specially ones that could affect workflow between platforms, etc..?

DiscreetFX
02-05-2009, 05:32 PM
@lwanmtr

Since they are using the QT Cross-Platform Application Framework they should in theory be almost the same (Linux, OS X, Windows versions). NewTek would have the final answer to that question though.

dglidden
02-05-2009, 06:16 PM
These are the things that confuse me about the listed "benefits" of the HardCORE membership that I'd like to know:

"First access to a Cocoa version of LightWave" huh? LightWave v9 is Cocoa now, right? And the new version isn't called LightWave, it's called CORE. Is this just a terminology problem or is something else weird I don't understand.

CORE FAQ says it uses Qt. Qt is a cross-platform, C++ widget toolkit. You can easily write a Mac UI using Qt, which I _think_ actually calls down to the Cocoa/Aqua UI for actual display widgets so it keeps the Qt-ish behavour but widgets look more or less native. (I could be very wrong, I've never done Qt/OS X dev) So that's kind of a hybrid Cocoa UI. But I have no idea if the announcement means a "native" Cocoa-via-Qt/OS X or a fully-native Cocoa UI that's in parallel with the Qt version.

I'm not so concerned about the CORE implications as I am confused about what it means for LightWave. I assume they are just calling CORE "LightWave" in that bullet point but it'd still be nice to get that clarified.

The part that REALLY bothers me is that one of the HardCORE "benefits" is "Continued updates to LightWave v9". So we have to buy a subscription now for (presumed) further updates to LW9? That kinda sucks. Does that include any rumored Mac-64 version? If so, that sucks. Are there even still plans for a Mac-64 v9? If not, that sucks too.

Head off the expected response that I've seen so far on every CORE-related thread so far: yes, yes, lots of updates in the 9.x series, we should feel privileged for getting so many improvements without paying for them, 9.6 is practically a whole new version, blah blah, whatever. That's not how NT has been doing it up until this announcement so we are allowed to be disappointed if there are 9.x releases past 9.6 that we now have to pay for. Especially if that includes the 64-bit Mac version we've all been anticipating and asking about since we first heard the name "Chilton".

I _really_ want to know what's happening with v9 after this announcement.

P.S. You can certainly mix 64-bit C/C++ and Cocoa/Objective C, that's not even an issue. The restriction is that there is no 64-bit _Carbon_ framework. If you want to write a 64-bit app and take advantage of system frameworks, you do that in Cocoa, not Carbon anymore. If you want to write fast, native code, you can write it in C/C++ and link it against the Cocoa app and it has no effect on whether or not there is a 64-bit Carbon. You're not using Carbon in that case, you're just writing native code and linking it to your Cocoa app. Think of the C/C++ code as the bits that do the real hard work, and the Cocoa pieces as the bits that draw windows on the screen, play sounds, speak over the network, etc. Carbon was implemented in C++ and existed as C/C++ frameworks, but C/C++ is not inherently Carbon. The reason Adobe et al don't have 64-bit apps is because they decided to go the "easy" route and use Carbon as their native framework, because it was closer to the old Mac OS frameworks and therefore a "faster" route to a native OS X app.

Chilton
02-05-2009, 07:07 PM
Hi,

I see that people are adding questions as I type this, so if I miss yours, please speak up and I'll answer it.


Ok, the Mac version will be cocoa.......but will it be cocoa off the bat or do we wait for two years before it gets there? If I join by March will it be a gold version of cocoa 64bit at the end of the year or will it still be a beta version or 32bit version??


LightWaveCORE is built on Cocoa, and will be a Cocoa app from day 1.



What scares me is that LW9.6 will still be in development while work goes on the core, that tells me the core isn't production ready and the first year could be a waste of time and effort...if you know what I mean.


I'm scared of people with unusually large heads, like Tony Robbins.

We've learned a lot about what does work, and what doesn't work, in the various transitions during 9.6. However, we realized that going forward, we were plagued with the same types of bugs, over and over, and that moving to the new code base would eliminate the source of most of those. For example, LightWave is infamously sensitive (or famously insensitive) to unicode. LightWaveCORE is not, because we're using the Qt framework strings, so *poof*, that problem goes away. And it's cross-platform, so the problem goes away on both platforms. Pretty slick stuff.



Also will this LW9.6 post gold version still be free, even if I don't pick up the core and will it be 64bit or are you guying just keeping it in production until the core is workable?


I honestly don't know. I know the HardCORE group will be the first to get their hands on it, though.


Well it 'ships Q4' so if that version isn't production ready - or at least useable - there'll be some angry customers.


Judging by the responses in the forum right now, I would expect nothing less ;)



I got the impression it's Cocoa right now - after all, what the point in writing any of it in Carbon which Apple is no longer supporting?


Qt 4.5, which is the Cocoa based version we've been building with, is now officially in Release Candidate form. Here's some info on that: http://www.qtsoftware.com/about/news/qt-4.5-release-candidate-available



Oh, and one good thing I noticed: plug-ins are Mach-O bundles which means developers now write on plug-in which will work on PC, Mac and Linux. Mac user now have complete app parity! (Except that it'll probably run quite sweetly on Mac hardware with a nicer OS :-)

Right!


Some things don't make sense...like Chilton keeping the UI bugs etc. in 9.6 because it meant less work for later on. Which is fine but, but I kinda expected the 9.6 64bit to be available soon.


And now we reach the zillion dollar question. The answer is, we did build a Cocoa version of LightWave 9.6, we are still working on it, and we do intend on shipping it. More on that farther down...



Also, that means the core is still in the early stages, since they will continue the development of 9.6 along side the core.


Yes and no. We started on the Cocoa port of LightWave a long, long time ago. I dare say parts of it were in construction even before I came here. After WWDC 2006, we started shuffling things around for the Carbon 64-bit version.

And we all know what happened a year later, at WWDC 2007. But the really funny thing is, even at the 2006 conference, the writing was on the wall. Or at least, the overhead. They had this giant picture of the various frameworks, and how to access them under 64-bit Leopard, and all of the graphics classes were up there, with 'Carbon' on one side, and 'Cocoa' on the other. Then they showed this other scene that said, "Text" (CoreText, actually) and above it was "Cocoa". The speaker said something like, "We haven't finished text support for Carbon 64 bit yet." So we were scratching our heads and kinda wondering how that was going to work out for us, in LightWave...with its entirely text buttons ;-)

A few dev releases of Leopard later, and we started to see a pattern. No work was being done to support 64-bit Carbon text. So for LightWave, we started thinking about contingency plans, in case they actually didn't deliver the 64-bit Carbon version in the final release after all (it was in the pre-release versions of Leopard).



Besides all that...it does look like a killer app :thumbsup:


It actually is very awesome technology, as I'm sure we'll show everyone very soon.



Also, the hardcore program should only really start after LWcore has gone gold.


I have no control over, nor input on, nor any public opinion on this topic, and intend to continue to not have any such thing going forward, just so you know.


I get the impression 9.6 64bit on the mac wont ever exist. A while ago there was Chilton talking about it fairly openly but that went quiet a longtime ago...and now we know why....they switched to develop core instead!


No, all the noise about LightWaveCORE is just very, very loud. We stopped working on the Cocoa version to fix the remaining major bugs in the Carbon version. More on that below. But we will have a 64-bit 9.6 for Leopard users who own 64-bit hardware. If you're on Tiger, I can't help you. And if you're on a non-64-bit Mac, I also can't help you. Just remember that the base model Mac Mini is a 64-bit machine, though, and ships with Leopard.



On one hand, Im pretty excited about the future of core! Ok the pricing struture is going to be a kick in the wallet for most, especialy the hobbists...but thats the price of raising the bar and becoming a pro-app thats going to be taken seriously....and 64bit for us maccies to!




....however,on the other hand, if all that 64bit luvlyness is only available through investing in core then i kinda feel cheated with my 9.6 investments! We mac users have had a raw deal if that is the case.


I'm not sure what the word is there, but that's not my call to make. All I know for certain at this time is that our LightWaveCORE™ group will be the first to get their hands on it.



Anyways, exciting times nonetheless

Yes, it absolutely is.


They are still going to develop 9.6, unless I misread something somewhere. So we could still get a 9.6 64bit version, who knows.


Correct.



That's why I think the one year pricing structure should only start when LWcore is a solid release version. Otherwise, it'll look like they are pulling one over our eyes...if you still end up with a beta at the end of the year after paying up :D


I think people will be happy with it. As to whether or not you trust us, that's up to you. And I'm fine with skepticism. I think LightWaveCORE™ is going to surprise a lot of people.


well the advantage of Mac OSiX 64Bit is not so big like it is for ms-windows, so i wont care if LW 9 will be 64Bit or 32Bit.


There are other advantages to the Cocoa version of LightWave, though, which I'm sure we'll explain at a later date.


and that odd presentation from Jay and Captn Janeway in the Myst -environment wasn't worth the 13 days wait, marketing is still not Newteks strong point.

Myst was awesome, and LightWave was used extensively in the special effects for that series. But I will consider referring to Jonas as Capt'n J.


I suspect that we won't see a 64bit version of the UB, and they'll put the time into Core.


You will actually see a 64-bit version of the UB, and we will also put the time into LightWaveCORE™.



What still isn't clear is the further bug fixes for 9.6. There were still a number of open bugs when 9.6 went gold. We need a solid version 9 to bridge the gap until Core is solid, which face the facts, with a ground up rewrite will take a lot of time.


I'm not sure what the plan is for the 9.x series in general, but I can tell you that all remaining Mac specific bugs in the 9.6 version are being tracked by our vast Cocoa weaponry, and we will likely 'put some ordnance there', to borrow a phrase from the military.



Overall, I'm impressed with the Core possibilities (even tho the presentation stunk) and I will be upgrading as soon as possible, if for no other reason than to start the learning curve early.

I'm glad to hear it, and I think you'll love it.


I hope Newtek doesn't take their time to respond :hey:


Well, these questions are terribly inconvenient, and really interfere with my tanning schedule.


Kuzey- its cocoa from day one.

to me, core looks like it was built from the ground up as THE 64bit LW. on the mac to get there, it made little sense NOT to re-write from scratch and get added benefit from a modern pipeline and a modern UI.


That's largely correct, those are some of the reasons we moved to Qt, and a new code base. But we expect to also ship the 9.6 Cocoa version.



So, around the time LW was languishing and we were all bellyaching, it was decided to clean up and modularize LW, so the toolsets would all be more portable. remember when the renderer turned into a plugin? Core was part of the plan back then... oh , it may not have been called core, and that horrible "viral" campaign may not have been planned, but to me, Core seems like a natural evolution from where we were to where we should be.


Largely correct. We did start on this some time ago, and modularization is at its core. Pun intended.



But, I did a feature request a few months ago, that is very similar to Core's feature list, maybe I'm just biased.


Biased towards AWESOME? Yes, yes you are.



point is, Core looks like the only way LW could get to 64bit on the mac, I suspect that it IS already 64bit, but if not, its a switch to flip during compile rather than a whole host of changes.


Nah, we'd get to the 64-bit Cocoa version without LightWaveCORE™.

But LightWaveCORE™*opens a whole wide world of new possibilities that we can't easily do with the old codebase. So it's definitely worth it.



what I find More interesting though, is Newtek's attempt to change its DNA. in the Core Manifesto, they talk about some of the technologies, some 3rd party, and they vehemently defend their choices against making in house versions. As users we don't care where the tech comes from, but Newtek is historically incapable of going to third parties, even for software that they themselves don't understand, hence some of the bizarre UI, that screamernet replacement that never shipped, and the windowing system of LW itself.

We've actually been fixing a lot of the weird UI behaviors in the current (Carbon) 9.6 UB, and we'll do even more of that for the Cocoa version.



This has got to be very hard on the company but I believe it is the most significant thing they've done in core. Newtek is selecting the best 3rd party software they can find where they need something that is not the LW team's specialization, and we are going to benefit. shortened dev cycles, less bugs, less overall code for Newtek to worry about, better compatibility, a larger trained dev pool to draw on... Newtek has made a crucial step in a very good direction, to speed up and smooth out the dev cycle, and give us a better value added.


Righto.


One question I have is the "charter membership"..... Will I only get upgrades to 10.x only when I am a member?

I don't know.


Yes, I'm a little concerned at the wording in the hardcore benefits about this...

First to receive the COCOA version of LightWave

First? - as in ... the COCOA version will come sometime after the initial beta?
... or First as in there's never been a COCOA version before this so get it now?


I don't know.


Cool! My question is will Core run on my G5?


Yes, we build LightWaveCORE as a Universal Binary on the Mac, in both 32 and 64 bit flavors.



I am planning on upgrading to a new Tower. I am not sure when that is going to happen just yet, but I can afford Core and will probably buy it early rather than later.

Just looking at the prices, I'd definitely prefer to buy in at the cheaper, sooner rate. But then, I know a few people see the LightWaveCORE™ announcement as an excuse to snake people's money without giving them anything. And that's fair, a little skepticism never hurt anyone.

We've stated that the initial builds will be in our users' hands sometime in Q1, and the special rate extends to March 31, which I believe is the end of Q1. So the product will be in our users' hands before the special offer expires.

So the skeptics can keep on skepticin'. We're obviously fine with that.



use a crayon like you usually do...hehe.


I prefer Crayons, because they fit in my giant troll-like hands better than pencils. And because of the lovely colors. As you probably guessed, at NewTek, our crayons are all different shades of grey. I hear we used to have an orange one, but some guy took it with him when he left.



I think 64bit Cocoa is the main thing that Mac users are wanting, besides all the tools and toys that should come with Core...


I suspect that's largely the case.



Of course, that being said....

Will there be *any* differences between the 3 platforms? Specially ones that could affect workflow between platforms, etc..?

Not really. The Qt Frameworks are surprisingly good at this stuff.




Since they are using the QT Cross-Platform Application Framework they should in theory be almost the same (Linux, OS X, Windows versions). NewTek would have the final answer to that question though.

You are correct. Though I'm not sure about Linux. What's a Linux? Do people even use them anymore?

-Chilton

lwanmtr
02-05-2009, 07:16 PM
I prefer Crayons, because they fit in my giant troll-like hands better than pencils. And because of the lovely colors. As you probably guessed, at NewTek, our crayons are all different shades of grey. I hear we used to have an orange one, but some guy took it with him when he left.

A sad day for NewTek to be sure

Cool to hear all that stuff you said. Nice to know a 64bit 9.6 will indeed happen..any hints on when?

Chilton
02-05-2009, 07:17 PM
Oh good, Dglidden whipped up a bunch of questions at the last minute to see if I'm paying attention...


These are the things that confuse me about the listed "benefits" of the HardCORE membership that I'd like to know:

"First access to a Cocoa version of LightWave" huh? LightWave v9 is Cocoa now, right? And the new version isn't called LightWave, it's called CORE. Is this just a terminology problem or is something else weird I don't understand.


LightWave v9.6 is Carbon based. The Cocoa version is on the way. LightWaveCORE™ is an entirely different system, from the ground, up, and has zero legacy paradigm issues, which is a vast departure from the issues we face(d) in 9.6. That's why development on it has been so rapid, and why it's so tightly coupled with modern hardware.



CORE FAQ says it uses Qt. Qt is a cross-platform, C++ widget toolkit. You can easily write a Mac UI using Qt, which I _think_ actually calls down to the Cocoa/Aqua UI for actual display widgets so it keeps the Qt-ish behavour but widgets look more or less native. (I could be very wrong, I've never done Qt/OS X dev) So that's kind of a hybrid Cocoa UI. But I have no idea if the announcement means a "native" Cocoa-via-Qt/OS X or a fully-native Cocoa UI that's in parallel with the Qt version.


The Qt version will look the same on all platforms. And it's fully skinnable via CSS. So I expect our graphically inclined users to really go to town on this.



I'm not so concerned about the CORE implications as I am confused about what it means for LightWave. I assume they are just calling CORE "LightWave" in that bullet point but it'd still be nice to get that clarified.


All I know is it's called LightWaveCORE™ everywhere, so I'm going with that, at least for now. But then, you don't work for NewTek, so I guess you can call it anything you want. ;)



The part that REALLY bothers me is that one of the HardCORE "benefits" is "Continued updates to LightWave v9". So we have to buy a subscription now for (presumed) further updates to LW9? That kinda sucks. Does that include any rumored Mac-64 version? If so, that sucks. Are there even still plans for a Mac-64 v9? If not, that sucks too.


We're making the Cocoa v9.6 version now, and it will be available soon. I don't know it's going to play out though, with regard to who gets what, and when, as these are management decisions. I do know that we've publicly stated that the HardCORE members will get first access to it, though.



Head off the expected response that I've seen so far on every CORE-related thread so far: yes, yes, lots of updates in the 9.x series, we should feel privileged for getting so many improvements without paying for them, 9.6 is practically a whole new version, blah blah, whatever. That's not how NT has been doing it up until this announcement so we are allowed to be disappointed if there are 9.x releases past 9.6 that we now have to pay for. Especially if that includes the 64-bit Mac version we've all been anticipating and asking about since we first heard the name "Chilton".


I wish I had a solid answer for you, but I don't.



I _really_ want to know what's happening with v9 after this announcement.


I'm sure we'll have a definitive answer on this at some point.



P.S. You can certainly mix 64-bit C/C++ and Cocoa/Objective C, that's not even an issue. The restriction is that there is no 64-bit _Carbon_ framework. If you want to write a 64-bit app and take advantage of system frameworks, you do that in Cocoa, not Carbon anymore. If you want to write fast, native code, you can write it in C/C++ and link it against the Cocoa app and it has no effect on whether or not there is a 64-bit Carbon. You're not using Carbon in that case, you're just writing native code and linking it to your Cocoa app. Think of the C/C++ code as the bits that do the real hard work, and the Cocoa pieces as the bits that draw windows on the screen, play sounds, speak over the network, etc. Carbon was implemented in C++ and existed as C/C++ frameworks, but C/C++ is not inherently Carbon. The reason Adobe et al don't have 64-bit apps is because they decided to go the "easy" route and use Carbon as their native framework, because it was closer to the old Mac OS frameworks and therefore a "faster" route to a native OS X app.

Yep.

I have a few additional notes about the Cocoa version, such as...
Why did Apple do this? If the Cocoa version is so far along, why did we even bother with the Carbon version of 9.6? Why hasn't Adobe done this yet? Why hasn't <insert competing app name here> done this yet? Why are we using Qt if Cocoa is so awesome? ...and a few others. But I'll get around to those later.

Chilton
02-05-2009, 07:20 PM
And I missed this one...


I really hope we get 64 bit.. . I can't wait for the days when I'm chucklin to myself reminissing over the days when lightwave ran out of memory! 64bit is a huge win 4 me. . . I'm at the point that I might have to consider another platform or even other software if lightwave can't deliver. Abandoning my mac 4 a pc will break my heart and lightwave has been good to me. Perhaps chilton will shed some light on the matter now core is out the bag! Either way core is the future but I need to know my options now.

Your Mac is safe. We'll be there, and in two varieties, 9.6 and LightWaveCORE™. Soon.

-Chilton

Scazzino
02-05-2009, 07:31 PM
And I missed this one...

Your Mac is safe. We'll be there, and in two varieties, 9.6 and LightWaveCORE™. Soon.

-Chilton

Great news Chilton! :thumbsup:

I kept the faith that we'd get a 64-bit 9.6 UB at some point before full CORE coolness fully gels! :rock:

I can't wait... really... so bring it on! :hey:

Chilton
02-05-2009, 07:49 PM
Hi,



The issue is that to make Core 64 bit, Newtek is required to use Cocoa (which they are), which is Objective C, quite a different beast to C++. That raises a concern about parallel Mac dev. It's a lot of effort to develop for Objective C as well as C++ (just ask Adobe, who have yet to release a 64 bit version of Photoshop on the Mac for that very reason).


One of the biggest problems for anyone developing a cross-platform app with Cocoa on the Mac is the difference in overall software design. You can whip out a bulletproof OS X app in Cocoa in short order, if you follow the Model-View-Controller design, and stick with the conventions used in Cocoa. Unfortunately, that design is really different than how most Windows apps are written.

Qt is built on top of Cocoa (in 4.5), and has its own design, which means we have pretty much zero cross-platform design issues like this to deal with. However, it also means that we're not using Cocoa design patterns for development, and that means that we have to be careful not to end up with yet more slightly off UI elements or behaviors. Don't worry though, we're paying attention.

And I expect that going forward, every time we implement something a little off in the UI, our Mac users will rightly point and laugh. And hopefully file bug reports ;)



Makes me wonder if releases will be in parallel.


You imply disparity where there is none.

There is only one codebase for CORE. For that matter, there's only one codebase for LightWave, but we have more platform specific code in there, which was part of its original design. More on that later.



And while it's good news to hear about the Mach-O bundle, I'm not sure how that could work on the Mac in 64 bit - surely if the developers write in C++ the code will execute in 32 bit, since OS X has no 64 bit C++.

So that could mean that even if developers can easily release on all platforms, the Mac version of plugins will only run in 32 bit, even with the 64 bit host.


If the developer is building against the Qt frameworks, it will build a special type of bundle-like thing that will be a bundle on OS X, and something else on the PC (magic rainbow? I don't know, I'm not a Windows developer). And that one doohickey will run in the native mode, for whatever it's executed on. The way that works is pretty simple--the Qt frameworks actually build a separate executable for each type of target system, and the appropriate one, whether PPC, Intel, 32 or 64 bit, will load when the user loads the plug-in.

-Chilton

eblu
02-05-2009, 08:07 PM
And I expect that going forward, every time we implement something a little off in the UI, our Mac users will rightly point and laugh.


you can count on me :hey:

rakker16mm
02-05-2009, 08:29 PM
Yes, we build LightWaveCORE as a Universal Binary on the Mac, in both 32 and 64 bit flavors.

You guys Rock! I'm in.

And thank you for answering my question :)

ingo
02-06-2009, 01:43 AM
Your Mac is safe. We'll be there, and in two varieties, 9.6 and LightWaveCORE™. Soon.

Thanks for taking time to answer all questions Chilton, and many greetings to Captn J (May the core be with you :hat:)

ELinder
02-06-2009, 05:04 AM
Thanks for all the answers. It sounds like if you join the Hardcore program, you get to be a part of the inevitable open beta-ish phase of the 64 bit 9.6, then the general public gets it too once it's gold. Yet another reason to go buy early.

What I can't figure out, is how NewTek has been doing so much work on so many versions simultaneously. The coffee machines must be tired by now!

Erich

Otterman
02-06-2009, 05:55 AM
Red bull and miners lamps!

Ok, it sounds like its going to be another thumb twiddling session for me regarding the 64bit stakes but im very glad newtek still have it in the pipeline. Thanks for keeping us in the loop Chilton, it gos along way to keeping the faith!

Kuzey
02-06-2009, 07:39 AM
For a time there I thought QT was Quicktime...silly me :D

Thanks Chilton, it's always a pleasure to read your posts, they a fun and they have loads of information as well. Btw, are you going to star in one of the demos showcasing the Mac version of LWCore...hint...hint :thumbsup:


Kuzey

Glendalough
02-06-2009, 07:50 AM
... But we will have a 64-bit 9.6 for Leopard users who own 64-bit hardware. If you're on Tiger, I can't help you. And if you're on a non-64-bit Mac, I also can't help you. Just remember that the base model Mac Mini is a 64-bit machine, though, and ships with Leopard...

-Chilton

Can't really find an answer as to whether the 64-bit version of 9.6 will be free to those with 9.6 on the Mac.

I believe we where told this, is this still true?

Chilton
02-06-2009, 09:10 AM
Hi,


Can't really find an answer as to whether the 64-bit version of 9.6 will be free to those with 9.6 on the Mac. I believe we where told this, is this still true?

That's a good question. It's also one I honestly don't know the answer to, and it's not my call to make.

I'm actually not trying to sound harsh there. This question brings up something I meant to do awhile back, which is point out my stand on this kind of issue. Because I'm vocal about the programming side of things in the forums, I realize it looks like I'm The Decider on all things Macintosh. But I'm not. I just spend time in the forums when I'm running performance tests, building, etc. I am not in any way a part of management at NT.

See, you don't want engineers coming up with upgrade paths, or you'd have either insanely expensive products (because that's what we think it's worth) or dirt cheap products (because to us, it just costs us time, and we like working on this stuff, and we really like our users). And if you leave the ship and release dates up to the engineers, the product will never ship, because it's never 'done' to us. No matter how perfect you make something, when you're done making it, you realize what you could have done better, and there's that often overpowering urge to go back and take one more stab at it.
Edit: (true to form, I realized I edited this paragraph after having posted it, to clean it up a bit).

Any way you slice it, these extremes would mean a pricing system that would quickly sink any product line worth selling (as well as the company backing it). It's happened more times than I can count, before, when friends of mine start software companies and don't hire anyone to handle the marketing, sales, or management. Believe me, you don't the LightWave team deciding these kinds of things any more than you'd want sales or marketing building a new rendering engine for LightWave.

So you need a strong management team that can bridge the gap between the two. And yes, to the casual observer, it does appear they don't do anything but tell other people what to do. But the truth is, they're the people that have to do the unpopular, un-fun work in the company, exactly like what we're discussing. In this case, weighing the costs of development against the cost of deployment, and coming up with a system that won't alienate everyone in the process. When you have a good management team in place, you can tell it, because you end up with tremendous products that eventually do ship. We have a really good management team at NewTek, and I want it to stay that way. So in order for this division to remain working properly, they need to be free from pressure by the development team on topics like this.

So in short, we have other people who will know the answer to that, and I am very grateful that I can concentrate on my work, and not constantly worry about whether our pricing system is adequate to keep my lights on, etc. I trust them fully with this issue, and I suspect we'll get an official word on that soon.

-Chilton


My opinion:
I don't remember the last time I got a free upgrade for anything that cost me over $100. I remember taking on a second job at a food court *YEARS* ago, so I could afford the 'Gold' version of CodeWarrior, which cost around $700 at that time. I'd just spent $800 for it and a few plug-ins for it, a month earlier. No upgrade path existed for that version. And later that year, a new version of SuperCard came out, so I again took a night job watching BBQ pits at a mom 'n pop BBQ place so I could afford the $700 for that one. And free BBQ didn't hurt. Don't get me started on Photoshop, Painter, SuperPaint, and the giant list of others. At some point in the last ten years, software prices dropped like a rock, and I have no idea why or how--it certainly doesn't cost less to make it these days. So to me, the free upgrade path is absolutely stupid. I swallowed my pride, and worked some pretty sucky jobs to buy software I wouldn't really see a return on for years later. The cost for the cheap buy-in on LightWaveCORE is less than I've ever paid for any pro software.

And get off my lawn! *shakes fist feebly*.

And at the same time, I know a lot of you by name, though I don't know your faces (not yet, but I'm a bit of a stalker, so it'll happen eventually). And I consider many of you to be friends, if only on a professional basis. And again, I don't remember the last time I charged any of my friends for anything I did for them, from fixing computers to writing software for their kids. So to me, all of you deserve absolutely free software for life. That's just how it is, when you're friends. If a friend of yours asks you for a render of a butterfly, and it just so happens you've modeled an awesome butterfly for some giant corporation, and you can spend the extra hour or so to customize it for your friend, you'd probably do it. I'm the same way about software.

See my point? You don't want me making these decisions. NewTek definitely doesn't want me making these decisions. The only people who would benefit from me making these decisions would be our competition.

Chilton
02-06-2009, 09:19 AM
For a time there I thought QT was Quicktime...silly me :D


In Cocoa, we also have QuickTime, and QTKit, which are slightly different things. So we technically have Qt (note the caps), QTKit, and QuickTime. And Cutey, which is what we call Jonas.



Thanks Chilton, it's always a pleasure to read your posts, they a fun and they have loads of information as well. Btw, are you going to star in one of the demos showcasing the Mac version of LWCore...hint...hint :thumbsup:


I eh... need to hit the gym a few more times before I want to find myself on the business end of a camera.

-Chilton

Glendalough
02-06-2009, 09:40 AM
Hi,



That's a good question. It's also one I honestly don't know the answer to, and it's not my call to make.

I'm actually not trying to sound harsh there. This question brings up something I meant to do awhile back, which is point out my stand on this kind of issue. Because I'm vocal about the programming side of things in the forums, I realize it looks like I'm The Decider on all things Macintosh. But I'm not. I just spend time in the forums when I'm running performance tests, building, etc. I am not in any way a part of management at NT.

See, you don't want engineers coming up with upgrade paths, or you'd have either insanely expensive products (because that's what we think it's worth) or dirt cheap products (because to us, it just costs us time, and we like working on this stuff, and we really like our users). And if you leave the ship and release dates up to the engineers, the product will never ship, because it's never 'done' to us. No matter how perfect you make something, when you're done making it, you realize what you could have done better, and there's that often overpowering urge to go back and take one more stab at it.
Edit: (true to form, I realized I edited this paragraph after having posted it, to clean it up a bit).

Any way you slice it, these extremes would mean a pricing system that would quickly sink any product line worth selling (as well as the company backing it). It's happened more times than I can count, before, when friends of mine start software companies and don't hire anyone to handle the marketing, sales, or management. Believe me, you don't the LightWave team deciding these kinds of things any more than you'd want sales or marketing building a new rendering engine for LightWave.

So you need a strong management team that can bridge the gap between the two. And yes, to the casual observer, it does appear they don't do anything but tell other people what to do. But the truth is, they're the people that have to do the unpopular, un-fun work in the company, exactly like what we're discussing. In this case, weighing the costs of development against the cost of deployment, and coming up with a system that won't alienate everyone in the process. When you have a good management team in place, you can tell it, because you end up with tremendous products that eventually do ship. We have a really good management team at NewTek, and I want it to stay that way. So in order for this division to remain working properly, they need to be free from pressure by the development team on topics like this.

So in short, we have other people who will know the answer to that, and I am very grateful that I can concentrate on my work, and not constantly worry about whether our pricing system is adequate to keep my lights on, etc. I trust them fully with this issue, and I suspect we'll get an official word on that soon.

-Chilton


My opinion:
I don't remember the last time I got a free upgrade for anything that cost me over $100. I remember taking on a second job at a food court *YEARS* ago, so I could afford the 'Gold' version of CodeWarrior, which cost around $700 at that time. I'd just spent $800 for it and a few plug-ins for it, a month earlier. No upgrade path existed for that version. And later that year, a new version of SuperCard came out, so I again took a night job watching BBQ pits at a mom 'n pop BBQ place so I could afford the $700 for that one. And free BBQ didn't hurt. Don't get me started on Photoshop, Painter, SuperPaint, and the giant list of others. At some point in the last ten years, software prices dropped like a rock, and I have no idea why or how--it certainly doesn't cost less to make it these days. So to me, the free upgrade path is absolutely stupid. I swallowed my pride, and worked some pretty sucky jobs to buy software I wouldn't really see a return on for years later. The cost for the cheap buy-in on LightWaveCORE is less than I've ever paid for any pro software.

And get off my lawn! *shakes fist feebly*.

And at the same time, I know a lot of you by name, though I don't know your faces (not yet, but I'm a bit of a stalker, so it'll happen eventually). And I consider many of you to be friends, if only on a professional basis. And again, I don't remember the last time I charged any of my friends for anything I did for them, from fixing computers to writing software for their kids. So to me, all of you deserve absolutely free software for life. That's just how it is, when you're friends. If a friend of yours asks you for a render of a butterfly, and it just so happens you've modeled an awesome butterfly for some giant corporation, and you can spend the extra hour or so to customize it for your friend, you'd probably do it. I'm the same way about software.

See my point? You don't want me making these decisions. NewTek definitely doesn't want me making these decisions. The only people who would benefit from me making these decisions would be our competition.


Thanks for the reply. Suppose I shouldn't use the word free. What I really mean is that Windows got 64-bit in the LW 9 cycle, and so, I believe, it was assumed that Mac users would get it too. It was talked about in the forums.

I feel Newtek is a fair company and respect their integrity but wouldn't like to be disappointed obviously. Marketing people can mess up as well, cause a lot of wasted time and money. They shouldn't be given too free a rein, unless they always make the right decisions.

toby
02-06-2009, 06:17 PM
I'd be floored if NT charged 9.6 owners for a new 9.6 version. Did they charge pc owners for their 64bit version?

lwanmtr
02-06-2009, 06:25 PM
I would be kind of put off if I had to pay just to use my 9.6 at 64bit on Mac...While I dont know whats in their brain, my assumption is that it will probably be a free download. But we'll see...

ncr100
02-06-2009, 11:12 PM
Whoa Chilton, I am feeling like laying down a label after that very open forum posting.

You da mac daddy!

I wish I had more to say. Thanks for the openness.

Triodin
02-08-2009, 10:15 AM
Chilton is Ron Burgendy.

Consider me and my mac signed up for Core.

OlaHaldor
02-08-2009, 11:52 AM
Aaah.. gotta find a way to earn the $$$ to get into Core as well. My Mac is crying for it!
Chilton - whatever you're writing - it's a nice read!

kfinla
02-08-2009, 12:44 PM
Thanks for all the info Chilton, very much appreciated. I am pretty sure you are a large reason behind a lot of people upgrading on the mac side.

I know I'll be buying in to Core before the 31st, I'm just waiting on more info/demo's and hopefully a more favorable CAN/US exchange rate :)

I'm very happy to hear that cocoa and C++ can play nice together, I was not aware of that.. and was concerned about plugin support for the mac, especially since a 64-bit mac plugin seemed like it would be a real pain for a small niche. I love hearing the amount of effort needed on the 3rd party side is going to shrink.

That said, you may not be able or allowed to answer this now but I am pretty curious; are all plugins and scripts that were compatible with LW9.x in need of a re-complile/rewrite for LW10 (core)? As much as I love my Worley plugins I sure like the idea of a NT writing native previewer that has no caveats.. and no I don't mean viper :)

Otterman
02-08-2009, 01:14 PM
I've got a feeling the fact worley has been pretty tight lipped about fprime the last couple of years is no coincedence regarding newteks activities. I wouldn't b surprised if there is a working core ready fprime already. Again I'm only speculating!

hdace
02-08-2009, 02:21 PM
I'd be floored if NT charged 9.6 owners for a new 9.6 version. Did they charge pc owners for their 64bit version?

This is the $64,000 question and the only reason I've read this entire thread.

I've been working on the same film for nearly three years. The final scene is the most ambitious and I keep running out of memory due to 32-bit limitation on the G5. All I want is to finish this dang thing without having to pay out more moolah. It seems almost inevitable that I'll either have to buy a new PC with 64-bit processors (not too expensive) unless 64-bit 9.6 Mac version appears soon. And if the 9.6 doesn't come soon I guess NT will be forcing me to buy a PC in order to finish this project. Core just isn't an option.

There is always the next project. Knowing my luck it'll be live action only.

Dreamer
02-08-2009, 02:42 PM
Chilton
I greatly appreciate your candor, Mac commitment and rapid response time. I've always felt that there was an ear at Newtek with you there. The Beta process went very well under your direction. After reading all of your responses in this thread I will be joining the Core program before the end of March. Again, Thank you.

toby
02-08-2009, 02:56 PM
This is the $64,000 question and the only reason I've read this entire thread.

I've been working on the same film for nearly three years. The final scene is the most ambitious and I keep running out of memory due to 32-bit limitation on the G5. All I want is to finish this dang thing without having to pay out more moolah. It seems almost inevitable that I'll either have to buy a new PC with 64-bit processors (not too expensive) unless 64-bit 9.6 Mac version appears soon. And if the 9.6 doesn't come soon I guess NT will be forcing me to buy a PC in order to finish this project. Core just isn't an option.

There is always the next project. Knowing my luck it'll be live action only.
Can't you break up the scene into smaller pieces?

jackany
02-08-2009, 04:48 PM
Hi Chilton, thank you for taking the time to answer in such detail! :beerchug:
I think, these infos will soon get me cored...

Great to have you here!

____________________
"...being a Mac user is like being a Navy SEAL:
a small, elite group of people with access to the most sophisticated technology in the world, who everyone calls on to get the really tough jobs done quickly and efficiently." :lol:

hdace
02-08-2009, 06:10 PM
Can't you break up the scene into smaller pieces?

I shouldn't have to. Period.

toby
02-08-2009, 07:36 PM
Oy! I thought you wanted to finish your movie? Give it a try, there's other big advantages to breaking scenes up. Hardware and software limitations is the #1 reason the practice was started, workarounds will always be required in any 3d package.

Not only would breaking the scene up allow you to render it, it also allows you to render a higher quality movie - imagine you had to keep your geometry below 4 mil polygons to render everything in-camera; breaking it in two would allow you to use 8 mil polygons. It can also save you days of rendertime if any part of the scene needs to be redone.

There are a dozen other ways to optimize your scene too, we can all help you with that here on the forums. I'm positive we can get your scene done without spending anymore money or waiting until the 64bit version comes out - of when, no one has any idea...

lwanmtr
02-08-2009, 07:49 PM
Composite where possible...I prefer doing it all in camera, but there have been a few times that I actually broke scenes apart and recomp'd 'em in After Effects.

hdace
02-08-2009, 08:08 PM
Oy! I thought you wanted to finish your movie? Give it a try, there's other big advantages to breaking scenes up.

Oy vey! Dude! I already have broken it up, but it's a bloody pain and shouldn't be necessary. I didn't want to get into this further, but here it is: there's a pond, a river, grass, clouds, fog, haze, animals, and characters. It lasts several minutes, they are all moving, and they are all interacting with each other.

I SHOULD NOT HAVE TO BREAK IT UP.

But with that much going on I realize it's inevitable. But I will purchase that PC if I decide it's necessary. My previous scene got broken up quite a bit but I'm trying to avoid it whenever I can to get better production value. I hope NT will help out but as I said, Chilton failed to answer the $64,000 question.

Chilton
02-08-2009, 08:31 PM
I hope NT will help out but as I said, Chilton failed to answer the $64,000 question.

Sorry, but I don't have an answer. That's something I suspect we'll get an answer on this week.

-Chilton

hdace
02-08-2009, 08:49 PM
This week? Cool! Thanks Chil-man.

Glendalough
02-09-2009, 05:35 AM
Sorry, but I don't have an answer. That's something I suspect we'll get an answer on this week.

-Chilton

Don't want to be too pushy here but to repeat what I said in another post:

We have been told at great length and explicitly how the Mac version is in no way to be made less or inferior to the Windows version. (3rd party plugins excepted, of course, as out of Newtek's control).

I don't see how the question has arisen that Mac users would be refused the 64 bit 9.6 as part of the 9 cycle when Windows users were given this? Such a mean-dastardly act would be Super Unfair!

Also said earlier that I feel Newtek is a fair company and respect their integrity and would be very disappointed along with all other Mac users I am sure. It's not just money but more the principal of the thing.

(and by the way it's not easy or 'nice' to have to write such messages, no one likes appearing negative, spoiling the party)

dsol
02-09-2009, 06:58 AM
Woah, been behind the times and just read Chilton's (lengthy) post. Man... that's awesome. Chilton, you (and your post) are the main reason why I'm whipping out my Visa card and getting my Hardcore Membership right now, instead of waiting til the end of the month.

You rock! And I know your pain re. software pricing - Since I bought After Effects in early 2002, I saw the price nearly halve (though I definitely made my money back on it regardless). Though it seems to be creeping back up again. I guess that happens when you have a monopoly like Adobe... or Autodesk.

It's great to have a company that's not afraid to interact with its users.

hdace
02-09-2009, 07:08 AM
...I feel Newtek is a fair company and respect their integrity and would be very disappointed along with all other Mac users I am sure. It's not just money but more the principal of the thing.

(and by the way it's not easy or 'nice' to have to write such messages, no one likes appearing negative, spoiling the party)

Quite. I like NT & Chilton a lot and I almost always end up typing negative stuff even though I'd rather praise them.

But it really is a little upsetting to see them asking us to reach for our wallets when we haven't gotten what the PC users have had for quite awhile now.

I would like to say, frankly, that it's wrong to put a lot of resources into Core at this stage until the 9.6 64-bit version is ready. It's just wrong.

dsol
02-09-2009, 07:13 AM
I don't see how the question has arisen that Mac users would be refused the 64 bit 9.6 as part of the 9 cycle when Windows users were given this? Such a mean-dastardly act would be Super Unfair!)

I'm guessing they'll give the final gold release of 9.6 64bit UB as a free upgrade for 9 users, but no access to the beta builds.

This would make sense in the light of the info on the lightwave core page - HardCORE benefits: First to receive the COCOA version of LightWave

Of course they don't have to. OSX 64Bit support wasn't explicitly promised as part of the mac 9 cycle - and Apple dropping planned 64bit Carbon support for 10.5 wasn't forseen , but I do agree it'll be sucky if they don't offer to do it as a free upgrade! I'm getting CORE regardless - what I've heard is enough to tempt me.

dsol
02-09-2009, 07:25 AM
But it really is a little upsetting to see them asking us to reach for our wallets when we haven't gotten what the PC users have had for quite awhile now.

You could say the same thing about Adobe and Photoshop on the mac. CS4 is 64bit on PC, but Adobe have NO PLANS to release a 64 bit version for OSX. Again, this is due to the need to port their UI code to Cocoa. They haven't even committed to delivering CS5 as a 64bit OSX app :(
The great thing about Apple is they're not afraid to break backwards compatibility if it moves the platform forward (and helps them jettison any crud in their OS and APIs). However, this does lead us (as end users) into this kind of situation. I'm sure, like the Intel transition, in the long term we'll be grateful. Right now, it kind of sucks.


I would like to say, frankly, that it's wrong to put a lot of resources into Core at this stage until the 9.6 64-bit version is ready. It's just wrong.

Well... maybe. I would imagine that the Cocoa porting work is being done solely by NT's mac engineers - so although porting 9.6 to Cocoa might slow down the mac port of CORE a bit, it won't interfere with CORE's main development efforts which are cross-platform (and mostly platform agnostic - I hope!)

kfinla
02-09-2009, 08:30 AM
Clinton mentioned the move to cocoa based code started before he even arrived at NT (2+ yrs?). I'm under the impression that a 64-bit OSX version of core is far along or already exists and the 9.6 64-bit version will be a bit of a conversion and borrowing of modules.

Personally I'd rather see the engineers focus on core rather than 9.x updates.. it seems a bit of a dead end. I wanted a 64 bit version of 9 before knowing about the complete landscape change in 10. I have a feeling the compatible plugins etc for OSX 64-bit in LW9 will not come to it in the shadow of core's announcement. I just don't see e-on, worley, happy digital etc bothering assuming they would have to make special versions to support one build of 64-bit mac.

hdace
02-09-2009, 12:18 PM
dsol & kfinla: you both make good points. Regarding Adobe, my first grade teacher used to scold a given misbehaving child, who says "Charlie did it!" by replying, "If you see Charlie jump in a fire, are you going to jump in too?" I hated her for that but today I'm saying the same thing to NT. Just because Adobe can't get it right doesn't mean NT should be taken off the hook. Granted it's a difficult situation caused mainly by Apple.

Of course 9.6 is a dead end six to sixteen months from now, but it isn't today when I've got a big project that is almost complete, has all been created in 9.x, is going to have to have re-rendering done in the future, the final scene is a major peak in sophistication, and requires lots of ram to access. I need 9.6 Mac 64-bit as soon as possible and it should be a free update, not an upgrade.

toby
02-09-2009, 02:14 PM
Don't want to be too pushy here but to repeat what I said in another post:

We have been told at great length and explicitly how the Mac version is in no way to be made less or inferior to the Windows version. (3rd party plugins excepted, of course, as out of Newtek's control).

I don't see how the question has arisen that Mac users would be refused the 64 bit 9.6 as part of the 9 cycle when Windows users were given this? Such a mean-dastardly act would be Super Unfair!

Also said earlier that I feel Newtek is a fair company and respect their integrity and would be very disappointed along with all other Mac users I am sure. It's not just money but more the principal of the thing.

(and by the way it's not easy or 'nice' to have to write such messages, no one likes appearing negative, spoiling the party)
No one has said that it might be a paid upgrade, and NT has never charged for a .x upgrade. Chilton cannot confirm that it will be free because that's not his department, but that doesn't mean that it won't be.

lwanmtr
02-09-2009, 03:01 PM
I for one will be happy when 9.6 gets a 64bit version...and besides the occaisional bug fix, I also beleive that they should be turning focus to Core...Yeah, it would be great to see new stuff in 9.6, but I have enough for what I need and would rather see them make that Q4 target for release.

I'm also sure that 64bit will be a freebie.

Sarford
02-10-2009, 07:46 PM
But it really is a little upsetting to see them asking us to reach for our wallets when we haven't gotten what the PC users have had for quite awhile now.

I would like to say, frankly, that it's wrong to put a lot of resources into Core at this stage until the 9.6 64-bit version is ready. It's just wrong.

That is a bit unfair don't you think? We have gotten exactly as much as the "pc-users". Remeber that when you buy LightWave you'll get it for both platforms, you don't buy a platform specific version. If you ABSOLUTLY need a 64 bit version, run it on a pc or under bootcamp, you DO HAVE acces to a 64 bit version.
Running LW in 64 bit nativly would be nice, but to almost demand it from NT? Come on...

toby
02-10-2009, 09:20 PM
That is a bit unfair don't you think? We have gotten exactly as much as the "pc-users". Remeber that when you buy LightWave you'll get it for both platforms, you don't buy a platform specific version. If you ABSOLUTLY need a 64 bit version, run it on a pc or under bootcamp, you DO HAVE acces to a 64 bit version.
Running LW in 64 bit nativly would be nice, but to almost demand it from NT? Come on...
You'd have a point if he had an intel mac!
But it's arguable whether his lack of access on PPC is NT's fault or Apple's... probably Apple's
But further, if NT did release a 64bit version and it wasn't free, it would be less fair than they've promised to be.

hdace
02-11-2009, 04:29 AM
yes... my mac is a G5. The last and highest model they built. And I've been told that my investment is safe with NT.

I do have several intel iMacs but they can't have enough ram.

dsol
02-11-2009, 04:56 AM
Damn... PPC only. Well I guess you'll just have to wait for the 9.6 Cocoa/UB64. If you can afford to switch to a macPro (remember - the new Nehelem/Core i7 versions are out in march hopefully!) - I highly HIGHLY recommend it. Yeah, money - I know :(

I have a Quad G5 and a 8core 2.8Ghz MacPro - the mac Pro is 3-4 times the speed of the PPC machine. And it's whisper quiet - even under heavy load!

toby
02-11-2009, 02:50 PM
Damn... PPC only. Well I guess you'll just have to wait for the 9.6 Cocoa/UB64. If you can afford to switch to a macPro (remember - the new Nehelem/Core i7 versions are out in march hopefully!) - I highly HIGHLY recommend it. Yeah, money - I know :(

I have a Quad G5 and a 8core 2.8Ghz MacPro - the mac Pro is 3-4 times the speed of the PPC machine. And it's whisper quiet - even under heavy load!
the new procs didn't look like much of a speed boost, but I'm looking forward to the time I can buy an 'old' 3.2ghz 8-core cheap =)

kattkieru
02-11-2009, 05:09 PM
@Chilton:

Thanks for taking the time to answer all those questions, and for having such a great sense of humor. :thumbsup: I also appreciate the candor. It's nice to have answers that come from people, not from a "company" if you know what I mean.

The reason I bought CORE is because of the tireless work I saw during the 9.6 beta phase. 9.31, when I got it, was basically unusable on the Mac for what I needed (IE, it crashed a lot). But I watched damned near every bug that bothered me hunted down and fixed before the 9.6 release, particularly a few Mac-specific ones (like the IKBooster stuff). If that's the kind of dedication Newtek is going to put into making CORE a cool product, I want to support that.

On the plugin-building front, tho: will the Mach-O bundles require separate OS's, or will there be a GCC toolchain for cross-compiling? I'm still fuzzy on that. I suppose it's cool either way, but having the tools to make Windows plugins on my Mac would make my life much easier. (I support a plugin for Maya and man, is compiling it for all the different versions / OS's a pain.)