PDA

View Full Version : Chilton gone from NewTek?



Phil
04-18-2009, 08:12 AM
Chilton's just posted on facebook that he's no longer working for NewTek. :(

Kuzey
04-18-2009, 08:26 AM
Damn...That's bad news all around, since Chilton is a great guy and bad news for the Mac development of LW.

Does this mean it's the start of the end for the Mac platform?

Chilton, best of luck in whatever you end up doing.

Kuzey

Phil
04-18-2009, 08:31 AM
One interpretation of his post is that the iPhone pays better *shrug*

littlewaves
04-18-2009, 08:32 AM
I'm afraid the pessimist in me now just assumes we can kiss goodbye to the 64 bit UB of 9.6

Kuzey
04-18-2009, 08:35 AM
So Chilton has left Newtek and was not forced??


Kuzey

Phil
04-18-2009, 08:44 AM
Chilton posted further on facebook :

Phil, iPhone development pays extremely well, compared to the rest of the computer industry right now, but I've tried to ignore it until this week. On Monday, NewTek asked me to leave, so I left. We had some disagreements. That's about all I'm going to say on the matter, at this time. I did thoroughly enjoy working on LightWave though, and I'm glad I had a chance to meet so many exceptionally talented professional artists. The Mac user base made it all worthwhile.

Kuzey
04-18-2009, 08:55 AM
Ahh...that's interesting. I always though Chilton was held back by the higher ups...the relationship seem to go bad since 9.6 went gold.

Anyway, that's the feeling I'm getting.

Chilton...best of luck with the iPhone apps, may each one be a success :thumbsup:

Kuzey

JeffrySG
04-18-2009, 09:04 AM
Best of luck to you, Chilton! You'll be missed around here.
(I hope it is ok with him that you posted that Facebook info) ???

I hope you make a ton of money out there!

Lightwolf
04-18-2009, 09:11 AM
(I hope it is ok with him that you posted that Facebook info) ???
Well, don't post anything you consider as being remotely personal on facebook ;)

Cheers,
Mike

CGI Addict
04-18-2009, 09:20 AM
The handling of this by NewTek is consistent with the rest of their PR work. Realiy makes one wonder. Not even a whimper or scrap of an explanation as to how this sad news affects Mac development.

Pretty sad. Best of luck Chilton.

archijam
04-18-2009, 09:28 AM
Indeed.

Good luck Chilton!

Pity this is mentioned on a weekend, we can only vaguely hope for a comment from NT ..

littlewaves
04-18-2009, 09:30 AM
this is where if anyone at newtek had the first clue about PR they'd get someone to post something reassuring about how despite Chilton not being around anymore that they were still committed to the mac platform.

Let's face it. Core isn't going to be usable for months yet if not years and now we won't even get a 64 bit UB 9.6 in the meantime. And there certainly won't be anyone working on any existing Mac bugs in 9.6.

Lightwave 9.x on the Mac is unfinished business and will now most likely remain so

3dworks
04-18-2009, 09:45 AM
well, chilton wasn't the only one working on the OSX versions, so maybe it's not stopping developments for mac completely... best wishes to him, anyway!

my only hope is that LW in one way or another gets a fixed UB build soon, because that's what we will use (or NOT use) day by day for another year at least... and 64 bit is what we all need, of course.

imo, CORE is a mere technological demo atm, not really useful for any production work, so a well working layout + modeler 9.6.x combo is paramount and should have priority over any other development... for example, without fixing the existing SDK bugs we will probably not be able to use those upcoming updates for certain third party external render engines and previewers on multi CPU macs decently...

markus

Sande
04-18-2009, 10:05 AM
Chilton, best of luck - You will be missed.

Neverko: the reason everything works so much better and faster in Vista is because it is so stable, secure and overall superior platform. The reason why it's users often feel so insecure that they have to degrade to relentless trolling still beats me, though... ;)

Limbus
04-18-2009, 10:26 AM
hmmm, I wonder if this means good or bad things for the LW Mac version...
Time will tell.

Cheers, Florian

CGI Addict
04-18-2009, 10:29 AM
hmmm, I wonder if this means good or bad things for the LW Mac version...
Time will tell.

Cheers, Florian

The way things have been going as of late . . . a bit moldy. I wouldn't bet the house that 64bit will be out before CORE has been fully realized.

BlueApple
04-18-2009, 10:47 AM
Chilton was always good at communicating Mac-side issues, and did so with a swiftness and clarity that we didn't seem to get from anyone else. His presence certainly made me feel good about Mac development, and his absence is having the opposite effect, on me at least.

Hope Chilton enjoys great success with his new work.

That said, there are others at Newtek that work on the Mac-end, and while they may not be as vocal as Chilton was, I don't doubt their dedication to the product.

It wouldn't hurt for Newtek to make a statement regarding Chilton's exit, given his key role in Mac development.

UnCommonGrafx
04-18-2009, 11:02 AM
Fascinating...
It was his vocal role that clarified him. I, as a pc guy, have had great respect for the conversations held by Chilton as regards the Mac platform.

NewTek isn't about the habit of explaining their internals very often. Right now, for example, they have parted with two iconic figures as of late yet no conversation has been held about it.
I don't expect that to change.
Good luck, Chilton.

CGI Addict
04-18-2009, 11:20 AM
...two iconic figures as of late yet no conversation has been held about it.
I don't expect that to change.
Good luck, Chilton.

Who's the other?

JeffrySG
04-18-2009, 11:22 AM
Chilton was always good at communicating Mac-side issues, and did so with a swiftness and clarity that we didn't seem to get from anyone else. His presence certainly made me feel good about Mac development, and his absence is having the opposite effect, on me at least.

Hope Chilton enjoys great success with his new work.

That said, there are others at Newtek that work on the Mac-end, and while they may not be as vocal as Chilton was, I don't doubt their dedication to the product.

It wouldn't hurt for Newtek to make a statement regarding Chilton's exit, given his key role in Mac development.
:agree:
Given that it's the weekend, maybe we'll hear something on Monday from NT. Then again, this is an internal issue that I'm sure NT didn't intend on us finding out about so quickly.

COBRASoft
04-18-2009, 11:28 AM
Who's the other?

William "Proton"? Just a guess :)

CGI Addict
04-18-2009, 11:33 AM
William "Proton"? Just a guess :)

Yea, it gotta be William.

Hopper
04-18-2009, 11:46 AM
Surely you don't expect for NT to make some sort of statement every time a staff member has been hired or has left to persue other opportunities. That's rediculous if you think so. That's not something any company is going to broadcast especially within a venue such as this. It's no business of ours regardless of NT's responsibility to support their products. Even from a legal standpoint, the most they are going to divulge is a confirmation that the individual no longer works for or represents the company. And they certainly are not going to do that here. Seriously.. use your noggin. It's pretty much common sense.

CGI Addict
04-18-2009, 12:00 PM
NewTek is under no obligation legally, but from a standpoint of appreciating it's customers especially those who got most of their Mac info from one person who was the one that was asked to leave, they owe it to them at the very least. Following it up with a quick look down the road for Mac development wouldn't hurt either.

Good customer relations never hurt a company.

Hopper
04-18-2009, 12:07 PM
NewTek is under no obligation legally, but from a standpoint of appreciating it's customers especially those who got most of their Mac info from one person who was the one that was asked to leave, they owe it to them at the very least. Following it up with a quick look down the road for Mac development wouldn't hurt either.

Good customer relations never hurt a company.
I don't necessarily disagree. They do owe it to their customers to ensure the continued support of their products, but matters of staffing are something that is rarely discussed outside of the company. I would tend to bet that you will not hear a peep out of NT about this issue.

BlueApple
04-18-2009, 12:11 PM
Surely you don't expect for NT to make some sort of statement every time a staff member has been hired or has left to persue other opportunities.

As a Mac user, a statement from Newtek regarding the loss of LightWave's most vocal "Mac guy" would be reassuring.

However, I absolutely agree that Newtek doesn't have to (and shouldn't) comment publicly every time someone leaves the organization. For that matter, if they don't say anything regarding Chilton's exit, I'm going to be just fine.

I am far more concerned with a LW 9.6 Mac UB 64-bit release and development of Core than I am with anything else.

CGI Addict
04-18-2009, 12:46 PM
I can't help but feel Chilton's exit and 64bit for the Mac are linked in some way. I feel that perhaps NewTek has haphazardly issued their statement on the future of it's Mac development. Pretty lazy way to go about it in my opinion.

IMI
04-18-2009, 01:40 PM
William "Proton"? Just a guess :)

He just moved to NY to work as head honcho animator dude for some studio there and left the DAVE school, not NewTek, far as I know. From the new place's press release, it seemed that Proton and NewTek are still very much together.

In any event, William Vaughn's name is still on the list of moderators here, and they only use NewTek people, so I doubt he's left NT.

aidenvfx
04-18-2009, 01:44 PM
It's tough for any company to comment on this type of situation. Companies have to be very careful about what they say and do far more then an individual has to. As for the disagreement hard to say. Congrats to Chilton for landing the iphone job.

For myself I went with Lightwave because of what it offers for the price. The other program I will be using is RealFlow. I have no idea if this was a smart move or not but at the end of the day I needed a program that could work with Realflow in a very small budget and that is where lightwave fit in.

Scazzino
04-18-2009, 02:17 PM
Bummer! :oye:

We'll miss you Chilton! :bowdown:

Good luck with your iPhone development! :thumbsup:

PS: I may be doing some iPhone development as well. Once I finish my Autiton Archives project (http://dreamlight.com/insights/autitons/welcome.html) I may rewrite DreamLight Verttice (http://dreamlight.com/webshop/entertainment/verttice.html) or DreamLight Quipples (http://dreamlight.com/insights/09/welcome.html) for the iPhone... ;)

Kuzey
04-18-2009, 02:36 PM
Newtek doesn't have to comment on Chilton's departure but it sure brings up huge questions about the development on the Mac side.

First of all....will my LW 9.6 bugs be fixed or rubber stamped "fixed" because I'm not in the Core beta to keep an eye on things and they can't reproduce it with the few machines they have??

Will Newtek now try to sell the 64bit version to us when it should be a free upgrade.

Exactly when will the 64bit version come out, now would be a good time to mention a firm date/period.....or is it dead.

Is the Mac version now an after thought. Will we return to the days of no communications between Mac users and Newtek coders and resulting in buggy software?

Will the Mac version be a straight port from the PC version, ignoring Mac differences in the operating system etc.

Kuzey

archijam
04-18-2009, 02:40 PM
Aside from the fact tha Chilton was a great (not to mention funny) guy, he was also the most visible (perhaps only visible) LW mac rep, and that in turn makes people antsy.

It would be a good step to have reps for each OS, as more and more requests are very OS specific and should not be cluttering up the rest of the discussion.

Johnny
04-18-2009, 03:08 PM
chilton RAWKED!

only thing I can say without repeating others (much) is...

more than one egg...more than one basket.

word.






J

lwanmtr
04-18-2009, 03:26 PM
Good luck Chilton.

Just another one of NewTek's great blunders IMO...It seemed he was the only true advocate we Mac users had there..certainly was the most involved with the users.

So, like others are stating...what now? Is 9.6 Cocoa dead? Is this going to be another one of those promises NewTek made that they will now go back on (in favor of Core)?

Sorry to sound negative, but the silence on the cocoa version has been a pain, and now the top mac guy is gone...C'mon, NewTek, you're not filling us with great confidence here....

toby
04-18-2009, 03:29 PM
*Rats*

Johnny
04-18-2009, 04:12 PM
as I think more about this, I'm recalling what was said back in the 2003-ish days...Chilton was brought in specifically as part of a move by NewTek to improve the Mac version of LW (and perhaps other titles). When you combine this latest move with some of the observations that you and others are making, it certainly communicates something ill w/respect to the evolution of the Mac version of LW.


J

lwanmtr
04-18-2009, 04:18 PM
Well, one of the concerns for Mac users with reguard to cocoa was that Core development would overshadow it and possibly make it vaporware....while there is still at least 1 mac person left at NewTek, I'm beginning to lose faith that they will actually deliver a 64bit mac version of 9.6...despite the fact that Core will not be a production ready environment for at least a year or more.

NewTek's silence on Cocoa and dismissing Chilton only help to feed those fears...

Red_Oddity
04-18-2009, 04:47 PM
I don't know, but, are you guys not blowing it all out of proportion?

As long as Newtek delivers on their promises i don't see why they should discuss their internal discussions on human resources to the general public.

Also, the leaving of one programmer doesn't automatically mean it's the end of the Mac version, you guys make it sound like when, say, if Continental or Bridgestone would stop making tires it would be the end of the entire car industry as we know it (just to bring in another lame car analogy that seems very popular on forums.)

lwanmtr
04-18-2009, 04:55 PM
Perhaps out of proportion a bit..it happens whenever there are shakeups like this...hehe.

However, given the already small dev team newtek has, and more importantly, the even smaller mac team...yeah, we're a bit concerned.

As for promises, well, 64bit has been promised for a long time, and while some of the delay wasnt NT's fault, we're still without even a beta version..in other words..they say it's in the works, but no one has seen it (outside of the guys supposedly working on it)...With Core being the future of LW and realistically the last chance for NT to regain standing in the 3d community, the development of Mac 64bt 9.6 seems to take a back seat...

We're not saying it's end, but Chilton did alot to bring Mac LW to where it is and communicated very well with the users...now that's gone, and we've had no word from NewTek or the remaining mac guy(s) as to whats what.

jin choung
04-18-2009, 09:25 PM
newtek's loss... and probably ours.

good luck chilton ol' bean.

jin

lino.grandi
04-19-2009, 02:42 AM
I think that something like this is should not be our problem at all.

It's Newtek problem.

We don't know why is gone, we don't even know if this is better or worse for te Mac side of LW/Core development.

Newtek has to deliver its customers the Mac version of Core.

Customers have to receive their Mac Core version.

That's all we have to know.

littlewaves
04-19-2009, 04:18 AM
I think that something like this is should not be our problem at all.

It's Newtek problem.

We don't know why is gone, we don't even know if this is better or worse for te Mac side of LW/Core development.

Newtek has to deliver its customers the Mac version of Core.

Customers have to receive their Mac Core version.

That's all we have to know.

Actually that isn't all we have to now at all.

I'm really not that interested in core just yet. I may well look at it in the long run but it's at least a year before it's a proper replacement for 9.6

What I'm concerned about is that they finish 9.6 on the Mac (ie bring it inline with PC version meaning kill bugs and give us 64bit).

I think a lot of people were already nervous about whether they'd actually bother and now that the only guy who ever told us what was going on on the mac side has been let go it doesn't take an unreasonably pessimistic person to assume that it's curtains for 9.x on the mac.

Chilton was always very helpful and I wish him the best but I don't care about the ins and outs of why he's gone (that's none of our business).

I suspect someone from Newtek will chip in early next week and tell us that they still have people on the mac side but there'll be no new info on 64bit (unless they just admit it ain't coming anymore)

Fadlabi
04-19-2009, 04:46 AM
Good luck Chilton

toby
04-19-2009, 04:56 AM
I think that something like this is should not be our problem at all.

It's Newtek problem.

We don't know why is gone, we don't even know if this is better or worse for te Mac side of LW/Core development.

Newtek has to deliver its customers the Mac version of Core.

Customers have to receive their Mac Core version.

That's all we have to know.
There's also the *quality* and the timeliness of the mac version to consider, not just whether we will get it or not.

-EsHrA-
04-19-2009, 05:22 AM
oke, thats it!!!...
ive almost had it with NT.... ..the amazing wise decisions...
the non excistant communication.....the Who are You attitude... the arrogance.. .

them folks are ruining our [my..] beloved app and dont care about customers or even employees
which should be quite clear after years of frustrations [modo/messiah/shave] and epic failing of the core reveal.

utter and total amateuristic...

should i say more??..

seems to me again and again the wrong peeps are asked to leave..

yes im GRRRRRRR!!!! for the moment... and i didnt even use a MAC..

Good luck Chilton ..hope it works out for you!


mlon

ELinder
04-19-2009, 05:24 AM
Well, crud. He will be missed.

I have no idea how many Mac developers are there, but Chilton was THE voice for Mac users. Within the limits of what he could say publicly, he was candid about problems being worked on and progress being made. That is exactly the kind of communication that is going to be needed throughout the Core development and a key principle to help get people to try Lightwave who either left for other programs or never bothered to try it in the first place. It also keeps current users here, and was fairly high on my list of reasons why I chose to join Core at the start. If we go back to the previous silence and feeling of the Mac version being an afterthought, I may have to rethink things.

Erich

COBRASoft
04-19-2009, 05:33 AM
I'm not in the position to say this and I have no idea if it is the thruth or not, but did anybody think about the possibility that Chilton failed delivering the Cocoa version. Maybe he didn't find a solution for the problems they're having with 9.6.

Anyway: Chilton, good luck with the new challenges. NT, good luck getting that Cocoa version of 9.6 out of the door, some people are becoming desperate...

Kuzey
04-19-2009, 06:03 AM
I'm not in the position to say this and I have no idea if it is the thruth or not, but did anybody think about the possibility that Chilton failed delivering the Cocoa version. Maybe he didn't find a solution for the problems they're having with 9.6.


Actually, most of that would have been waiting for Apple to make the 64bit possible. I remember, Chilton saying the LW 64bit version was going to be the first one out there, but he can't be blamed for something out of his control like the development of Mac OS X.

I would say it's more likely he wasn't a yes person, he wanted Mac version of LW to be the best version and left some bugs in there so it would be easier to convert to the 64bit code later. He pulled the 9.5 version from siggraph because it wasn't ready or convinced his bosses to do so. These show a lot of guts and a belief the Mac version should as good as it can be.

I actually, thought the 9.6 needed about 3 to 6 months more development time. At one time I even asked newtek to send Chilton to Apple HQ to brainstorm the remaining problems of the Mac version.

Now we have a LW 9.6 64bit version only accessible to hardcore members and that means there will be a lot of bugs in the final version, because very few people will be there to check to progress of outstanding bugs. My concern is my bugs will be rubber stamped fixed when they won't be fixed...so tying the 64bit to Hardcore program was a big mistake and I'm sure Chilton felt the same way.

Because of Chilton leaving, I'm thinking the 64bit version will be a) not free unless you are in the Hardcore program and b) only available to hardcore members.


Kuzey

archijam
04-19-2009, 06:40 AM
Let's speculate some more shall we?

-EsHrA-
04-19-2009, 06:47 AM
its either speculation or defining reality.


mlon

Yamba
04-19-2009, 06:50 AM
Let's speculate some more shall we?

OK then!

I think that blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah ...............and...............he said she said....................

Having got that all off my chest I'd just like to say, thanks for your input Chilton your support has been most appreciated.

Shane

Kuzey
04-19-2009, 06:54 AM
He did say they had disagreements....so.....:hey:

Kuzey

jackany
04-19-2009, 07:23 AM
Damn, I think that's bad news! :oye:

I am not confident, that there is anybody waiting in line to step in his communicative boots...

One wish, please Newtek, give us customers a solid roadmap for the Mac development of 9.6 UB 64 bit / CORE Mac.

And all the best wishes for you Chilton, thanks for your devotion!

Glendalough
04-19-2009, 07:54 AM
Well, there was this big fanfare when Chilton 'came on board'. Now there is a big silence, no explanation, and one can only assume that Chilton was 'thrown overboard'. Maybe not good for him, but surely worse for us.

Where is the UB 64 bit? Another Big Mystery.

kfinla
04-19-2009, 09:41 AM
Well this is very disappointing news. Chilton's activeness on the forums, and dedication to the quality of the mac product were reasons I came back to using LW and was excited to use LW 9.2+.

One of the big draws for me years ago to Modo was they seemed to take their OSX development very seriously and was the first 3d app in my eyes built from the ground up to work on OSX and not be a windows port.

Chilton will be missed for sure, he personally solved bugs I had between Vue7 and LW9. He was quick to answer questions or address concerns. He was certainly a positive factor in my own decision in joining the hardcore program. I can't help but assume his dismissal was over his strong dedication to the mac platform and some development decision he did not agree with. I'm sure he will do well wherever he ends up, and they will be lucky to have him.

paul summers
04-19-2009, 09:54 AM
Very bad news for MAC users

Johnny
04-19-2009, 10:47 AM
I'm not in the position to say this and I have no idea if it is the thruth or not, but did anybody think about the possibility that Chilton failed delivering the Cocoa version. Maybe he didn't find a solution for the problems they're having with 9.6.


I'm not a programmer, but in most types of work I've done, completion of a project is NEVER all up to one person... it's only in the Sci-Fi/action/adventure movies where "ONLY ONE MAN CAN...."

save the world, get the girl, stop the disaster.

but, chilton was identified to us way back when as the new mac guy who would help NT make the improvements to LW which we were all clamouring for...I remember the threads going back to 2003..2002... there was a lot of gusto and vituperation.

So, now Chilton...the guy brough on to help improve Mac LW is gone, NT should be quick to say to the mac users "OK..here's our plan"


I don't mean that they should divulge proprietary information, but they used Chilton to make us feel we'd be taken care of, they should now let us know what their intentions are with respect to the Mac platform.

This isn't some emotional gossip group/coffee clutch/quilting party.

This is ART. This is BUSINESS. We are licensees of software which cost more than a bag of jelly beans, and we have a significant investment in time getting comfortable with it.

I myself am in the midst of creating a film with LW. I feel that I/we deserve to know whether our version of LW will continue to be improved in parity with the PC version, or allowed to languish.

the cost of upgrades and the cost of time is too dear to be left hanging.

True, I/we can continue to use what we have until our machines die. But some of us looking at hardware upgrades will also have to make decisions about software upgrades, too. I'm still using PPC Macs. I am not Warren Buffet. I can't afford to shell out for a "maybe."

Obviously the LW I have right now enables me to produce work at the level I expect. Whether I move forward on an upgrade trajectory or a stay-put position will be entirely a function of what I see offered in return for my upgrade dollars.

If it's going to be more of the same, then I can have more of the same thing of what I already have for free, cuz that 2005 upgrade is bought n paid for and whizzing around on my hard drive right this mo..

sorry to sound rough, but that's what it comes down to for me. plus, the economy's not doin' so hot these days....these are times where you squeeze a penny so tight it pees. I've got to see actual VALUE.

J

Scazzino
04-19-2009, 01:07 PM
One of the big draws for me years ago to Modo was they seemed to take their OSX development very seriously and was the first 3d app in my eyes built from the ground up to work on OSX and not be a windows port.

I hear ya. Mac centric development was a very big initial draw for me to check out modo too... then once I used it, I really liked it's selection system, navigation and interactive tools, so I stuck with it for modeling.

BUT, I'm not ready to give up on LightWave on the Mac. You mention modo being the first serious Mac 3D software... well Electric Image was really one of the first heavy duty Mac 3D applications many many years ago. It was my primary 3D app until they started porting it to Windows which seemed to slow down it's overall development at which point I switched to LightWave's Mac version, which had raytracing and an integrated modeler, which EI didn't at the time...

Jay and Mark who are heading the LW team now were the ones responsible for the original Electric Image which was Mac only at the time I believe. I was very encouraged when they took the reigns at NewTek's 3D division specifically for their Mac roots. Then when they added a true Mac evangelist developer in Chilton I was further encouraged about LightWave's future on the Mac.

Jay and Mark are still there, and I'm sure there are other developers working on the Mac version, though they may not be vocal on the forums. So let's wait for the dust to settle and see what their actual plans for LW Mac are. We know personnel have changed, but that doesn't necessarily mean their plans for the product itself have changed. I doubt they plan to relegate LightWave Mac to simply be a third-rate Windows port just because they've changed personnel. Let's give them the benefit of the doubt until we see where LightWave's really headed on the Mac.

BlueApple
04-19-2009, 01:31 PM
I doubt they plan to relegate LightWave Mac to simply be a third-rate Windows port just because they've changed personnel. Let's give them the benefit of the doubt until we see where LightWave's really headed on the Mac.

Well said. :agree:

Otterman
04-19-2009, 02:00 PM
Argh rats, thats my weekend spoilt! Chilton was the only human interface we had to the mac side of newtek and even that was flakey at times. I was hoping for a stable 9.6 version of lightwave, one that i could work with in production. Also the lack of 64bit developmet always put into question if lightwave had a future for me.......

Call this an over reaction if you will but this is nail in the coffin time! More than ever now i need to consider an alternative to lightwave.

Sad day!

aidenvfx
04-19-2009, 02:41 PM
Actually, most of that would have been waiting for Apple to make the 64bit possible. I remember, Chilton saying the LW 64bit version was going to be the first one out there, but he can't be blamed for something out of his control like the development of Mac OS X.

I would say it's more likely he wasn't a yes person, he wanted Mac version of LW to be the best version and left some bugs in there so it would be easier to convert to the 64bit code later. He pulled the 9.5 version from siggraph because it wasn't ready or convinced his bosses to do so. These show a lot of guts and a belief the Mac version should as good as it can be.

I actually, thought the 9.6 needed about 3 to 6 months more development time. At one time I even asked newtek to send Chilton to Apple HQ to brainstorm the remaining problems of the Mac version.

Now we have a LW 9.6 64bit version only accessible to hardcore members and that means there will be a lot of bugs in the final version, because very few people will be there to check to progress of outstanding bugs. My concern is my bugs will be rubber stamped fixed when they won't be fixed...so tying the 64bit to Hardcore program was a big mistake and I'm sure Chilton felt the same way.

Because of Chilton leaving, I'm thinking the 64bit version will be a) not free unless you are in the Hardcore program and b) only available to hardcore members.


Kuzey

Not sure what you mean by that. In HARDCORE I do not have access to a 64 bit version of LW 9.6, what I have access to is CORE which is not Lightwave.

Hopper
04-19-2009, 03:17 PM
Not sure what you mean by that. In HARDCORE I do not have access to a 64 bit version of LW 9.6, what I have access to is CORE which is not Lightwave.
I think what he is referring to are the "special" updates to 9.6 that may be offered to CORE members. Not necessarily bug fixes, but enhacements to the current version in order facilitate integration with the CORE product.

3dworks
04-19-2009, 03:19 PM
...

BUT, I'm not ready to give up on LightWave on the Mac. You mention modo being the first serious Mac 3D software... well Electric Image was really one of the first heavy duty Mac 3D applications many many years ago. It was my primary 3D app until they started porting it to Windows which seemed to slow down it's overall development at which point I switched to LightWave's Mac version, which had raytracing and an integrated modeler, which EI didn't at the time...

...

ah that was a nice post!! can't agree more, being myself another EI 'veteran'... at a certain point i stopped using EI because LW had all the other things i was looking for - after checking out C4D for around a year, which didn't convince me because of it's weak render results at that time. but i only started to get happy with LW 7.5c, which was the first version which i used in production work. macs, being powerpc based, had no way to run windows software natively, and buying extra PC hardware to run a more stable windows based LW was not on my list. anyway, worley's fprime 1.0 appeared on the scene, and even if with some glitches, it was a very advanced 3d solution on macs at that time, with some competitive advantage over any other mac 3d solution, at least in my eyes.

well, this is CG history already, but the following mac versions of LW had all introduced not only more features but even more bugs with every release - not attracting probably many new mac users to LW for years, until the 9.x series started to look again as a serious option for them. in the meantime, the market for 3d mac users developed, with some competition getting more and more serious (ok, just to drop those names, a strong C4D with vray as external render engine, and luxology's modo), weakening the unique vantage position of LW + fprime, at least for those working in the 3d visualization area.

but: LW version 9.6, even with those few serious bugs and glitches it still has, can certainly be considered as the best mac version ever, it is the benchmark for any future version of LW or CORE.

now NT needs just to keep the level, update and give us that 64 bit version (hey, we are now in 2009, using macs with up to 16 virtual cores, many of us having 8G or more RAM to work with!) + some bug fixes - then we all can work with it on the OS platform which we usually use, without having to swear and consider every time to switch definitely over to 'that other' 3d app before booting into windows again... :rolleyes:

markus

Darth Mole
04-19-2009, 03:39 PM
Gutted. I have no idea what's happened but Chilton was one of the good guys. Come on Mr Roth - put our minds at ease. If you can. With the ongoing CORE debacle, I am rapidly losing the LW faith.

Kuzey
04-19-2009, 03:39 PM
Not sure what you mean by that. In HARDCORE I do not have access to a 64 bit version of LW 9.6, what I have access to is CORE which is not Lightwave.

Well, I think the idea was that Core members will be the first ones to get their hands on the 64bit version of LW 9.6. They just haven't started releasing it yet. Not sure how they are going to do it, will it be just a straight 64bit port with no bug fixes or will they enhance it as they go along. It's all up in the air, more so now Chilton isn't here.

Kuzey

toby
04-19-2009, 03:53 PM
(ok, just to drop those names, a strong C4D with vray as external render engine
Very big contender, vray is a fantastic and FAST renderer, although C4D itself leaves a lot to be desired - controls are still over-simplified/inflexible, moreso than LW.


now NT needs just to keep the level, update and give us that 64 bit version (hey, we are now in 2009, using macs with up to 16 virtual cores, many of us having 8G or more RAM to work with!)
And an OS that doesn't support a 64bit UI!

lwanmtr
04-19-2009, 03:58 PM
As for the linking of 9.6 fixes and such, I do not wholly agree with NewTek tying it to HardCore membership...I still am of the opinion that the majority of HC members will spend their time on Core and 9.x will not get the attention it really needs to finally kill all the bugs and such on Mac and Windows..

Of course, now that the communication lines have been (ar least temporarily) cut, we may never know whats gonna happen

IMI
04-19-2009, 05:15 PM
As for the linking of 9.6 fixes and such, I do not wholly agree with NewTek tying it to HardCore membership...I still am of the opinion that the majority of HC members will spend their time on Core and 9.x will not get the attention it really needs to finally kill all the bugs and such on Mac and Windows..



Well in the course of a few discussions here I've ascertained it seems at least a few of the HC types seem to feel FiberFX, for one, is just fine....

I think some of them are blinded by CORE. They seem to feel the 3D Gods have smiled down upon them and nothing can be wrong as long as CORE is on the horizon. After all, they have a six-point-five million polygon dragon to play with, which I know would sure keep me entertained for a good while. ;)
It's like some kind of mass hypnosis thing. Look around - most of the known HC's have cut way back in their posting on these here commoner forums. And they even get their own special "Super Member" status. Kinda weird, really - I hope all goes well, wouldn't want to be there when the Kool-Aid gets served if things go wrong. ;)

Ergo, I'm not gonna hold my breath hoping for a patch to 9.6. I believe you're right, that any and all effort spent on LW from here on out will be CORE-related, and will not be made available to any of us non-CORE schmucks out here in regular old LW Legacyland.

It's kinda too bad, really. LW 9.6 is a monster - one way helluva cool app that almost reached its expectations, but not quite in a few areas... but now it's already "legacy". The pinnacle of Lightwavery to date was made obsolete almost immediately after its release by a program that doesn't even exist except to a select few and certainly can be nowhere near as powerful as the one it's replacing. Not yet, at least, although I do have faith it will *eventually* be the LW everyone always wanted. When though....

Well aside from all that, I don't do Mac, I don't know anything about Mac and LW aside from what I've read here, but I've seen a good number of Chilton's posts and he seemed like an overall knowledgeable, nice, concerned and cool guy. So I feel bad for you Mac guys - you definitely lost something important this week. And I do hope that whatever it is they have planned on the Mac side works out well for you eventually. :)

Scazzino
04-19-2009, 06:38 PM
I don't know what their LW9.6 plans are but since CORE is primarily targeting modeling for Q4, I'd expect they'll keep LW9.6 around as a companion to CORE until such time as CORE can fully replace Layout. My own guess is that will take at least a couple of years... so I wouldn't expect LW9.6 to die just yet. They will most likely continue to fix bugs in it and probably implement things that may help integrate it with CORE. A 64 bit version for the Mac could easily fit in there somewhere along the way. So let's not jump to conclusions here. I'd sit tight and wait till we hear what their actual (as opposed to our speculation) plans are for LW9.6 UB 64 before making any drastic moves. But that's just me...

:beerchug:

IMI
04-19-2009, 07:45 PM
I don't know what their LW9.6 plans are but since CORE is primarily targeting modeling for Q4, I'd expect they'll keep LW9.6 around as a companion to CORE until such time as CORE can fully replace Layout. My own guess is that will take at least a couple of years... so I wouldn't expect LW9.6 to die just yet. They will most likely continue to fix bugs in it and probably implement things that may help integrate it with CORE. A 64 bit version for the Mac could easily fit in there somewhere along the way. So let's not jump to conclusions here. I'd sit tight and wait till we hear what their actual (as opposed to our speculation) plans are for LW9.6 UB 64 before making any drastic moves. But that's just me...

:beerchug:

I'm sure you're right, actually. :)
Well, maybe...

I know words written on forums don't always come across in the way they're intended. What's perfectly obvious to me might be not-so-obvious to someone else, or mean something else entirely, especially when there's innuendo or sarcasm in it.

But actually, I write alot of my seemingly negative Core/LW things for the purpose of hoping to maybe force someone to come off with something, some information that maybe they're sitting on. ;)

The truth is, I love LightWave, I love using LightWave 9.6, and if CORE 1.0 looks like it has what I need, I'll upgrade after it's released.

I know either Chuck or Jay Roth said that LW 9.6 will receive updates "as deemed necessary", but none of us really know what that means. Alot of us deem it necessary to fix the broken things in FiberFX, for example, yet there's been no word whatsoever about that, and it's even been written elsewhere that some of the still-existing issues with it were brought up in the public beta, yet ignored.
And I want my Sigma node back, dammit. ;) That got broken somewhere along the way too, totally ruining a few earlier scenes somewhere between 9.3 and 9.6. And the OBJ problem too. They tried something new, it didn't work out, so they left it in but added this new, mysterious "ZBrush Mode", which is essentially the same old OBJ plugin with a new name. I'd have preferred some more fixes before, say getting a carpaint node. ;)
So, do the PTB "deem" such things as necessary? Well, the answer is, we don't know, and that's kinda annoying.

And also I think it might be important to note that one of the two of them had referred to "LightWave 3D" and said it won't be 9.6. This aforementioned "LightWave 3D" is implied to be what the CORE people will have as their companion, so I see no reason to assume that LW 9.6 will play a part in it at all. For all we know, this new "LightWave 3D" may very well be just 9.6 with some CORE-related changes and improvements, but not be available to anyone unless they buy CORE.

Well, I didn't mean to derail this thread, but I suppose this is along the same lines as the Mac UB thing - we all just want what we're supposed to have.

-EsHrA-
04-20-2009, 04:33 AM
" although C4D itself leaves a lot to be desired - controls are still over-simplified/inflexible, moreso than LW.
"

uh wha?? u even used C4D??...

inflexible controls?? and you are talking about LW?..

lol...

c4d is EONS ahead in terms of power, flexibility... so dont tell mumbo.


mlon

toby
04-20-2009, 05:04 AM
" although C4D itself leaves a lot to be desired - controls are still over-simplified/inflexible, moreso than LW.
"
uh wha?? u even used C4D??...

inflexible controls?? and you are talking about LW?..

lol...

How could I know that without using it?? YES I'm talking about LW, it's inflexible as it is, I want more flexibility, not less.


c4d is EONS ahead in terms of power, flexibility... so dont tell mumbo.

mlon
That's the way it was when I used it, v9. And sorry but I'll believe it's made revolutionary leaps in 2 versions when I see it for myself, that almost never happens.

Iaian7
04-20-2009, 03:00 PM
Ironically, it's the lack of Mac updates that's lead to my relative absence on the Newtek forums in the past few weeks (is NT really ever going to release Core for mac?)... I visit today to find the most terrible news. :cry:

It's hard not to overreact, but Chilton was key in my support of Newtek; knowing that he can no longer push for mac usability, polish, and support... I seriously question the future of LW, and certainly the intentions of NT. Chilton was the person I most trusted as an integral component of mac development, based both on his dedication and involvement with the community, and our occasional discussions during troubleshooting and beta testing. Even amidst disagreements, he posted from a calm and evenhanded position (IMHO), and his departure could easily spell disaster for the mac community here. On many occasions, he seemed to be a lone voice at a company with no interest in delivering a "mac-like" user experience.

Ok, ok, I'm calming down, I swear, no more wild accusations and despair... I hope Chilton all the best, but he's deeply missed already. :(

(to help balance my obvious support of Chilton, I do greatly appreciated Chuck, Jay, and others posting in the forums; Chilton wasn't the only one whose open communication helped assure me that Lightwave was, indeed, moving forward. He just happened to be the most vocal and dedicated mac supporter, and as such, well... now I'm just getting scared again. I'll stop.)

kfinla
04-20-2009, 03:07 PM
Oh right.. Electric Image I didn't think hard enough..I guess I was thinking of OSX.. since the last time I used EI was on system 9..

geothefaust
04-20-2009, 03:11 PM
Honestly, I don't think it's that big of a deal. With the current development structure of CORE and having more then a couple mac devs, he was probably made redundant. Yes it sucks, but for us end users, it's nothing to get riled over.

lwanmtr
04-20-2009, 03:18 PM
Well, it is kinda a big deal...when you look at the current bugs cropping up in Mac LW and the so far elusive Cocoa version of 9.6....You would think that they would keep their team going until those things were finished...

Core is not their current product, it's a future product.

Glendalough
04-20-2009, 03:59 PM
...

Core is not their current product, it's a future product.

Yes, unfortunately we live in the present.

Chuck
04-20-2009, 06:56 PM
Our plans for bringing major improvements to our Mac versions of LightWave and for maintaining our 3D products at parity on the Mac platform are unchanged. We have other team members focused on the Mac, most team members have one or more Mac systems and several do their coding primarily on the Mac platform, not just our Mac specialists.

Cocoa LightWave is still in progress, and will be going into testing with the HardCORE group when it is ready. LightWave CORE for Mac is very, very close to being released to the HardCORE folks, and will provide full coverage for the Mac as of the first build - 32 and 64 PPC, 32 and 64 Intel, in a unified application bundle.

We wish Chilton the best in his future endeavors. Mac users may rest assured that changes in personnel do not indicate a change in our commitment to the Mac Platform. We're working every day on taking better and better advantage of the unique strengths available on the Mac.

JeffrySG
04-20-2009, 07:29 PM
Great to hear, Chuck! Thanks for the update!

Scazzino
04-20-2009, 07:48 PM
Sounds good Chuck, can't wait! :thumbsup:

aperezg
04-20-2009, 07:59 PM
thanks for the update; I have invested much time and money on Mac systems, and I do not like the idea of switching to Windows systems

lwanmtr
04-20-2009, 08:07 PM
Thanx for piping in there Chuck..nice to get some word.

Any word on if 9.6 cocoa will be a free upgrade for us, or will we have to join hc?

Chuck
04-20-2009, 08:18 PM
LightWave CORE for Mac is very, very close to being released to the HardCORE folks, and will provide full coverage for the Mac as of the first build - 32 and 64 PPC, 32 and 64 Intel, in a unified application bundle.

It's now posted, for those of you who are HardCORE folks and want to get started on your downloads! :)

Chuck
04-20-2009, 08:21 PM
Thanx for piping in there Chuck..nice to get some word.

Any word on if 9.6 cocoa will be a free upgrade for us, or will we have to join hc?

Management seems to have this under review at the moment. I don't know if they'll make any changes to previous plans with regard to Cocoa LightWave's planned distribution or not. I do know first access will be testing among the HardCORE group.

lwanmtr
04-20-2009, 08:40 PM
Management seems to have this under review at the moment. I don't know if they'll make any changes to previous plans with regard to Cocoa LightWave's planned distribution or not. I do know first access will be testing among the HardCORE group.

Yeah, knew HC members would get their slimey tentacles on it first...just getting impatient...hehe.

Yamba
04-20-2009, 09:50 PM
Yeah, knew HC members would get their slimey tentacles on it first...just getting impatient...hehe.

Slimey Tentacles now being applied. Mmmmmmmm feels nice :D

Shane

rakker16mm
04-20-2009, 10:59 PM
I am sorry that Chilton is no longer with Newtek. He was absolutely stellar when it came to answering questions about Mac related issues. What ever the circumstances were that led to Chilton's departure they cannot detract from his contribution to the Mac community of Lightwave users.

CGI Addict
04-20-2009, 11:42 PM
Management seems to have this under review at the moment. I don't know if they'll make any changes to previous plans with regard to Cocoa LightWave's planned distribution or not. I do know first access will be testing among the HardCORE group.

Thanks for the heads up Chuck. It's clear to all who have followed Core news that Hardcore Members were going to get first look at Mac 64 but I do also remember NewTek, I believe it was Jim Plant himself that said all bug fixes will continue to be free and that any fixes that bring Mac LW into parity with current windows builds would also be free.

Is this the "planned distribution" you are referring to? :question:

littlewaves
04-21-2009, 02:49 AM
Management seems to have this under review at the moment. I don't know if they'll make any changes to previous plans with regard to Cocoa LightWave's planned distribution or not. I do know first access will be testing among the HardCORE group.

you see this is the part that really sucks for me. Management seem to have had this under review for a hell of a while now.

We've been promised 9.x 64 bit for a hell of a long time now and now it seems like there's a possible backtrack going on here.

Also I think any justification for hardcore members getting 64 bit version of "our" software first is really shaky.

Sure they've paid their money, but for Core NOT 9.x. We've all paid for that already and should be treated no differently to the windows users and the Hardcore mac users.

Mac users have waited long enough for a 64 bit version and we should be given it as a matter of priority.

Why should I have to pay for completely new software just to get my hands on a satisfactory version of the old software I've already paid for?

9.x on the Mac is not finished. You have not met your commitment to us. Meet it!

Limbus
04-21-2009, 02:55 AM
Also I think any justification for hardcore members getting 64 bit version of "our" software first is really shaky.


Quoted for agreement.

Florian

toby
04-21-2009, 03:28 AM
It's the beta that will be released to Hardcore members first, who are are really just beta-testers right now, and the only thing to test on 64bit 9.6 is bugs, no features. So I guess they don't want to start a new beta team and forum just so a few more customers can test bugs.

But they really do need to stop LAGGING on the mac versions, we pay just as much as the pc users.

Lightwolf
04-21-2009, 03:31 AM
But they really do need to stop LAGGING on the mac versions, we pay just as much as the pc users.
Well, to be fair though, Apple doesn't really make it easier for developers... and they haven't even ported some of their own core components to 64-bit either (QT for example).

Having said that, others have shown that Cocoa ports can be done in a lot less time (Maxon).

Cheers,
Mike

toby
04-21-2009, 03:44 AM
Well, to be fair though, Apple doesn't really make it easier for developers... and they haven't even ported some of their own core components to 64-bit either (QT for example).

Having said that, others have shown that Cocoa ports can be done in a lot less time (Maxon).

Cheers,
Mike
But Apple also does make it easier for developers. Just depends on who you're listening to.

But I'm talking about whether we get equal time and resources for the equivalent price, it's pretty clear we don't, marketing language not withstanding.

Lightwolf
04-21-2009, 03:56 AM
But Apple also does make it easier for developers. Just depends on who you're listening to.
Well, certainly not with a cross platform codebase.

But I'm talking about whether we get equal time and resources for the equivalent price, it's pretty clear we don't, marketing language not withstanding.
I actually doubt that. You probably get more as OS X does a whole lot of things very differently compared to any other major platform (including Linux) out there. Less so with Carbon... much more so with Cocoa. Down to the bit that you actually need to use a different programming language to access it properly.
Let's hope that Qt abstracts the OS enough to allow the developers to actually concentrate on LW again.. and not on a platform.

Cheers,
Mike

Otterman
04-21-2009, 04:09 AM
Its Apple and Newtek pears! It doesnt matter whos to blame-the fact remains there are mac customers who are pi$$ed at the way its been handled and the level of communication that chilton offered was our only glimmer of hope!

Now what! I just hope the powers at b at Newtek realise our frustrations and deliver something soon otherwise their customer base will dwindle as others seek alternatives.

toby
04-21-2009, 04:19 AM
Well, certainly not with a cross platform codebase.
? You're saying Windows is easier to port now too?


I actually doubt that. You probably get more as OS X does a whole lot of things very differently compared to any other major platform (including Linux) out there.
Wait a minute, you expect me to believe that NT has more mac programmers on staff, or have spent more time on it?? Gimme a break dude.

But in any case, you really don't have to bother telling us any of this, as someone who prefers pc development your opinion has always been skewed in that direction. Like I said, it just depends on who you're listening to, I've met a dozen linux programmers who hate windows WAY more than I ever did, and don't hate mac at all.

Lightwolf
04-21-2009, 04:29 AM
? You're saying Windows is easier to port now too?
If you use a cross platform language such as C or C++ it is easier to interface with. Because that's what the Win32 API is designed for. As are all the OS level APIs on Linux.
Cocoa requires Objective-C. Carbon was at least a lot easier to interface with directly from C/C++ code (even though the Pascal legacy is clearly shining through).


Wait a minute, you expect me to believe that NT has more mac programmers on staff, or have spent more time on it?? Gimme a break dude.
I think they primarily have 3D application developers on staff.

But in any case, you really don't have to bother telling us any of this, as someone who prefers pc development your opinion has always been skewed in that direction.
Yup. But at least I have a base to compare it on. And the only thing I say is that for cross platform development OS X imposes a few hurdles that other platforms don't.
If you only develop for OS X, that's no issue. But we're neither dealing with a single platform app here nor with an in-house tool.

Like I said, it just depends on who you're listening to, I've met a dozen linux programmers who hate windows WAY more than I ever did, and don't hate mac at all.
I don't hate any platforms... I just see pros and cons...

Cheers,
Mike

meshpig
04-21-2009, 04:50 AM
Go Chilton! Damn, it's too **********&^ typical!

That aside, I found this neat desktop app.

http://www.conjurebunny.com/Conjure_3.html

m

toby
04-21-2009, 05:11 AM
If you use a cross platform language such as C or C++ it is easier to interface with. Because that's what the Win32 API is designed for. As are all the OS level APIs on Linux.
Cocoa requires Objective-C. Carbon was at least a lot easier to interface with directly from C/C++ code (even though the Pascal legacy is clearly shining through).
I shouldn't have asked, the question actually came from <sarcasm>shock that you found even more to point out as better on pc than on mac.</sarcasm> I'm sure a mac programmer would give me a bunch of reasons why it's actually easier.


I think they primarily have 3D application developers on staff.
That's irrelevant, I'm talking about the amount of resources that NT's committed to platform-specific issues. You seem to think it would be more for the mac, I think that's laughable.


Yup. But at least I have a base to compare it on. And the only thing I say is that for cross platform development OS X imposes a few hurdles that other platforms don't.
If you only develop for OS X, that's no issue. But we're neither dealing with a single platform app here nor with an in-house tool.

I don't hate any platforms... I just see pros and cons...

Cheers,
Mike
Yes, and you see more pros with what you like or have more experience with, and more cons with the reverse.

Unless you want me to believe that all the mac and linux developers either know less about it than you, or actually prefer Windows.

Any experienced programmer can make any one of them look vastly superior, when talking to non-programmers.

Lightwolf
04-21-2009, 05:25 AM
I'm sure a mac programmer would give me a bunch of reasons why it's actually easier.
Probably... I'm not an OS specific coder... I do prefer a platform to work on, but that doesn't mean that I code explicitly for it. In fact, I try to avoid anything OS specific wherever I can.

That's irrelevant, I'm talking about the amount of resources that NT's committed to platform-specific issues. You seem to think it would be more for the mac, I think that's laughable.
Since the issues are a lot more complex I'd say that a lot more time is spent ironing them out.

Yes, and you see more pros with what you like or have more experience with, and more cons with the reverse.
I see pros when things go smoothly and cons when I find myself cursing too often ;) But I suppose 5 years of OS X hacking don't count...

Unless you want me to believe that all the mac and linux developers either know less about it than you, or actually prefer Windows.
I suspect they have different priorities. But it's not about the strengths of indiviual platforms but the ease of supporting _all_ of them (Remember, we're talking about cross platform here, nothing else). Which is why the switch to Qt for Core is a good move (and also means that less platform specific knowledge is needed).
Are command line Unix tools easy to port to OS X? Of course. GUI based? That's where it gets tricky. Easy with X11 (does OS X ship with a 64bit X11?), if you want a proper native GUI... ouch.

Any experienced programmer can make any one of them look vastly superior, when talking to non-programmers.
Yeah, but that's not my point at all.

Cheers,
Mike

Kuzey
04-21-2009, 06:53 AM
Management seems to have this under review at the moment. I don't know if they'll make any changes to previous plans with regard to Cocoa LightWave's planned distribution or not. I do know first access will be testing among the HardCORE group.

It seems like it's been under review for a very long time now, otherwise we would have known as soon as the core was announced.

So I presume that since non Hardcore members can't test to see if their reported bugs are fixed or not...that would mean Cocoa 64bit will be just a straight port with no bug fixes?

Will it be free for owners of lw 9.6 who happen to be non core members?

Actually, the fact that the Mac version of the Core just got released 3 weeks late kinda scares me. Things like, here we go again...comes to mind.

Last question, will there be any Mac coders stepping up and communicating with Mac users...or will you Chuck, be the only one making public comments from now on?

Kuzey

Glendalough
04-21-2009, 06:56 AM
What a can of worms!

Don't see why Core members should get 9.6 UB 64 bit before us.

If the situation was reversed, say with the Mac version of 64 bit completed, this would never have happen, there would be such an outcry from Windows users. The Mac beta 9.6 should be opened again for those who bought LW 9. Fair is fair.

Anyway, maybe it doesn't matter if the 64 bit would just get finished. On the other hand, if this drags on much longer, we should at least have access in out accounts to the beta 64 bit as one would assume it is not totally useless.

littlewaves
04-21-2009, 10:55 AM
Actually, the fact that the Mac version of the Core just got released 3 weeks late kinda scares me. Things like, here we go again...comes to mind.

yeah which makes me suspect that the talk of platform disparity being less of an issue with core was just marketing BS.

Although I guess 3 weeks late is nothing compared to the wait for 64 bit.

Anyway screw core. I'll wait until they've at least half built it.
I just want them to finish making the one I've already paid for

eblu
04-21-2009, 11:47 AM
If you use a cross platform language such as C or C++ it is easier to interface with. Because that's what the Win32 API is designed for. As are all the OS level APIs on Linux.
Cocoa requires Objective-C. Carbon was at least a lot easier to interface with directly from C/C++ code (even though the Pascal legacy is clearly shining through).



mike, thats opinion.
Cocoa Is OBJ-C, yes. but you don't interface with OpenGL with Obj-C you do it with C, and Cocoa has no problem with OpenGL. Obj-c (and Obj-C++) is a subset of C, ala: C++, so as a developer... you want to make a C call in Obj-C you just do it. you include the header, the lib, and make the call. theres no translation, no language conversion, no interfacing.

You Personally feel that Win32 API is easier, I can understand that, and I gracefully accept that you feel that way.

but please, lets not confuse opinion with fact. Some of us feel that C and Obj-C are very easy to interface together.

In fact, all of the foundation Libraries of Os X, the successor to carbon (basically carbon, organized, modernized, with all the pascal references removed), is either C or C++ (where necessary) and the Foundation Classes Do all the heavy lifting for Cocoa... interfacing just fine.

heck, if you were adamant about Obj-C being a problem, you could do almost everything they use cocoa for, from the foundation classes... it would just take a lot longer. all the cocoa layer does, is eliminate the work you don't want to do in developing your app. Sure, it takes time to get your head around it, but that doesn't make it difficult to work with, just difficult to learn.

Lightwolf
04-21-2009, 12:06 PM
mike, thats opinion.
Well of course it is.

Cocoa Is OBJ-C, yes. but you don't interface with OpenGL with Obj-C you do it with C, and Cocoa has no problem with OpenGL. Obj-c (and Obj-C++) is a subset of C, ala: C++, so as a developer... you want to make a C call in Obj-C you just do it. you include the header, the lib, and make the call. theres no translation, no language conversion, no interfacing.
The problem is that you're going the wrong way. Think C++ based cross platform code using a Cocoa GUI. That's where it gets hairy. Or a C based app using Cocoa for that matter.
Calling a C based API from Obj-C/C++ based code is trivial - the other way around can be _very_ tricky.

You Personally feel that Win32 API is easier, I can understand that, and I gracefully accept that you feel that way.
Again, this is not what I said nor implied. I said it is easier to interface to from cross platform code. That's an entirely different matter.

but please, lets not confuse opinion with fact. Some of us feel that C and Obj-C are very easy to interface together.
Cool, I'd love to see a major C based cross platform app use Cocoa then...

heck, if you were adamant about Obj-C being a problem, you could do almost everything they use cocoa for, from the foundation classes... it would just take a lot longer. all the cocoa layer does, is eliminate the work you don't want to do in developing your app. Sure, it takes time to get your head around it, but that doesn't make it difficult to work with, just difficult to learn.
Are you saying there is no need to actually use Cocoa (nor Obj-C) to create a 64-bit GUI then? Why doesn't anybody else say so?

Cheers
Mike

Glendalough
04-21-2009, 12:16 PM
All this platform stuff makes the head spin, how come a small company like Side Effects can have all these different versions including a Mac 64 bit? Wasn't everyone saying that LW was going to be the first less than a year ago? The present situation has just gone so far in the opposite direction.

http://www.sidefx.com/index.php?option=com_download&task=apprentice&Itemid=208

rakker16mm
04-21-2009, 12:23 PM
Also I think any justification for hardcore members getting 64 bit version of "our" software first is really shaky.

:agree: After all the no one on the PC side was made to wait.... They have had their 64 bit version since.... what was that 9.3?

I will probably be getting Core anyway so for me this is a mute point, but I think it is really a mistake on Newtek's part to play it this way. After all the Mac folks have been waiting longer than anyone for a 64 bit version of lightwave.

With all due respect to Chuck, and no offense intended to anyone at Newtek, the claim that Newtek is as committed to the Mac platform as ever, comes across as Newtek appears not to be very committed to the Mac platform. Hey I'm just saying.....

It is one thing to say it is taking longer to write the code because of technical issues. I understand this. I think everyone understands this, but it is another thing entirely when you start creating different marketing arrangements for the Mac and PC users. Yes I understand that Newtek wants to incentivise participation in Core, but to leverage the 64 bit cocoa version in this way is quite unfair.

We have waited long enough. Longer than anyone.

Lightwolf
04-21-2009, 12:28 PM
All this platform stuff makes the head spin, how come a small company like Side Effects can have all these different versions including a Mac 64 bit?
They never messed with Carbon for a start - so they had no legacy OS X code to port. I also suspect they're running on a cross-OS interface toolkit and probably don't really care about OS specific features to much either (i.e. the Windows version behaves just like the original Linux/Unix version in most regards, the same goes for OS X). There's slight platform differences (Quicktime support), but not too many.
I'd suspect that there is no Applescript support either ;)

Cheers,
Mike

amigo
04-21-2009, 12:38 PM
Couple of other forum members have voiced their concerns and I feel we should not drop the issue or change the topic. Our devotion to NT and LW aside, we are all paying customers.

Personally speaking, when something is free I keep my mouth shut, but when its paid for, it gives me a right to complain about anything I don't like or am not getting. It does not mean the vendor will listen, but next time I can take my business else where and advise others not to go to that vendor, as well.

So, can we please hear that commitment from NT regarding the Mac platform, directly from the horses mouth (Jay or Chuck)?

Couple of questions would be:

- When are you really going to deliver the 64-bit LW for Mac platform (month, year)?

- Who is going to replace Chilton here on the forums as a "spokesperson" for the Mac team? (whether you like it or not, we have got used to Chilton as being a most helpful NT employee when it comes to the Mac platform, and so a standard has been set, please appoint a new designate).

- How are those other concerns, which were pointed out many times, regarding stability, compatibility and speed going to be addressed; how many people will be allocated to work on them; how fast will they be corrected (month, year)?

Thanks.

Chuck
04-21-2009, 12:54 PM
But Apple also does make it easier for developers. Just depends on who you're listening to.

But I'm talking about whether we get equal time and resources for the equivalent price, it's pretty clear we don't, marketing language not withstanding.

We've always had at least one Mac coding specialist on board, and for the past few years we've had two. So far as I am aware, we've never had anyone on the team devoted exclusively to any other platform on a full time basis. Everyone else is a 3D specialist and engaged in writing platform-agnostic code to run on multiple platforms and do the work of modeling, lighting, animating, shading and rendering. All of them are working with at least two platforms, most now with all three, Mac, Linux, and Windows.

Chuck
04-21-2009, 01:14 PM
It seems like it's been under review for a very long time now, otherwise we would have known as soon as the core was announced.

So I presume that since non Hardcore members can't test to see if their reported bugs are fixed or not...that would mean Cocoa 64bit will be just a straight port with no bug fixes?

A lot of Mac-specific bugfixing is going into the Cocoa work, and if it is released in a 9.6.x version for all v9 owners (not just HardCORE folks), then it will also include general bugfixes underway as well.



Will it be free for owners of lw 9.6 who happen to be non core members?

As I mentioned previously, I don't yet know if there will be a change in plans, I just know there is a review of the matter in progress.


Actually, the fact that the Mac version of the Core just got released 3 weeks late kinda scares me. Things like, here we go again...comes to mind.

In the initial ramp-up for a new code base, the surprise would have been all three platforms achieving "first-light" readiness at once. There are always a lot of issues to resolve, especially when getting into a new toolkit as we are with Qt, but we've gone through that shakedown now, and it was a mere 20 days from getting the first platform ready to having all three in action. The issues that were resolved during that time should mean that from now on we have three platforms in step, permanently. Platform parity will always be a given for LightWave CORE.


Last question, will there be any Mac coders stepping up and communicating with Mac users...or will you Chuck, be the only one making public comments from now on?

Kuzey

Jay or I will be posting here on a regular basis. The software engineers will be concentrating on their engineering tasks, but may drop in occasionally to discuss specific issues as needed, as is the case with all members of the engineering team.

Glendalough
04-21-2009, 01:20 PM
A lot of Mac-specific bugfixing is going into the Cocoa work, and if it is released in a 9.6.x version for all v9 owners (not just HardCORE folks), then it will also include general bugfixes underway as well....
As I mentioned previously, I don't yet know if there will be a change in plans, I just know there is a review of the matter in progress...


Any suggestion that Macintosh LW9 users would not have free access to the 9.6 64 bit is very questionable considering we have been promised this innumerable times in writing on this forum by various members of Newtek staff. Are they all going to be fired?

At this stage I think it behooves 'Management' to confirm the continuation of this policy, free point upgrades, as part of the original purchase conditions, and part of the equal parity between Windows and Macintosh users.

Kuzey
04-21-2009, 01:28 PM
yeah which makes me suspect that the talk of platform disparity being less of an issue with core was just marketing BS.

Although I guess 3 weeks late is nothing compared to the wait for 64 bit.

Anyway screw core. I'll wait until they've at least half built it.
I just want them to finish making the one I've already paid for

True, 3 weeks is nothing in terms of the delays we have seen in the past, I'm worried about it blowing out to 3 months or more for the 4Q Core release. To be honest, it's not a great start and Newtek needs to be on the ball and make sure there are no more delays from now on....that all versions get released at the same time.

I have this feeling Newtek is going to turn into the bad guys without meaning to and that is just a shame. They can start to fix that by giving us a rough estimate on the delivery of Cocoa 9.6 and it's road map, will there be bugs fixes/beta process or not, will it be free or not.

Chuck did say they were going to reveal more on the Core from Jay's Q&A in the hardcore forums and about 5 weeks later that information is still not out. How many times does the marketing department need to check that the details are correct.

We get it, the Core will be changing from day to day, it's a new software. So there needs to be a time when the info just gets out there, and if in the future things do change then the information should be updated to reflect changes in direction etc. It's a good way to get people updated and the Core constantly in the news. Lock in new features...advertise, lock in more features....advertise again etc.

Kuzey

Kuzey
04-21-2009, 01:38 PM
A lot of Mac-specific bugfixing is going into the Cocoa work, and if it is released in a 9.6.x version for all v9 owners (not just HardCORE folks), then it will also include general bugfixes underway as well.




As I mentioned previously, I don't yet know if there will be a change in plans, I just know there is a review of the matter in progress.



In the initial ramp-up for a new code base, the surprise would have been all three platforms achieving "first-light" readiness at once. There are always a lot of issues to resolve, especially when getting into a new toolkit as we are with Qt, but we've gone through that shakedown now, and it was a mere 20 days from getting the first platform ready to having all three in action. The issues that were resolved during that time should mean that from now on we have three platforms in step, permanently. Platform parity will always be a given for LightWave CORE.



Jay or I will be posting here on a regular basis. The software engineers will be concentrating on their engineering tasks, but may drop in occasionally to discuss specific issues as needed, as is the case with all members of the engineering team.

Ahh...you beat me to the post. It's great news that all versions of the Core will now on par and I hope down the track the Mac version doesn't blow out for some unseen reason.

So, the bug fixing is done in house, with the closed beta team and there won't be any public beta process. That's going to be interesting and I hope they can a) replicate the bugs on their system and b) actually fix them.

How long is this review been taking place, has it passed the four week stage yet or has it just started?

Kuzey

CGI Addict
04-21-2009, 01:39 PM
just want them to finish making the one I've already paid for

That pretty much sums it up.

Chuck if you're still perusing this thread, that's how we're feeling right now. We paid the same price our PC partners did and expect the same product. That should be what's on management's minds right now, not whether CORE members get something we've all already paid for first because they paid a privilege fee to get. This was something we were promised some time ago.

What a load. This constant "we're evaluating" commentary is getting very tiresome and unprofessional to say the least.

Chuck
04-21-2009, 02:28 PM
So, the bug fixing is done in house, with the closed beta team and there won't be any public beta process. That's going to be interesting and I hope they can a) replicate the bugs on their system and b) actually fix them.

Bug fixing has always been done in-house, since this has never been an open-source product. :)

Testing will be done both within a closed beta group and in HardCORE, which is getting to be about the size of our previous Open Beta testing groups.

rakker16mm
04-21-2009, 02:34 PM
In the initial ramp-up for a new code base, the surprise would have been all three platforms achieving "first-light" readiness at once.

Chuck,

Historically everything comes for the Mac later than it does the PC. This fact well known by everyone. This situation is NOT unique to Newtek. There are in fact a great many companies where this happens to be the case. I think we Mac folk tolerate this to a degree because we understand that we are the niche crowed where as the PC has traditionally been main market. So be it, thus is the world made.

However I keep reading about Newtek's equal commitment toward both platforms and I would accept that on face value if it were not for the following:

1) LightWave v9 32/64-bit - Version 9.3.1 (Windows 2000/XP) VS LightWave v9 32-bit - Version 9.3.1 (Mac OS X Universal Binary)

2) LightWave v9.6 32/64-bit - Version 9.6 (Windows Vista/2000/XP) VS LightWave v9.6 32-bit - Version 9.6 (Mac OS X Universal Binary)

3) But if Mac users pay to participate in Hardcore then we will get the first crack at the Cocoa 64 bit version of 9.6 and then we will have parity with the PC platform... >on V9.6 soon to be replaced by Core<

I mean no disrespect toward Newtek. I am as much a fan boy for Lightwave as could be found anywhere but... the facts and the history do not seem to support the argument of equal commitment toward both platforms.

3dworks
04-21-2009, 02:38 PM
i have to reboot my mac EVERY day lots of times just to use LW under 64 bit windows, because nearly all of my projects need that amount of RAM now. more than one year ago, i thought that this procedure is OK for a few months - the UB 64 bit version was told to be around the corner. just to remember, see the thread here http://www.newtek.com/forums/showthread.php?t=81633& .
chilton even posted "We'd be first to market with a 64-bit Cocoa native 3D app." in that same thread on 03-23-2008.

now, honestly, every day i'm having that same thought: 'why i'm still doing this?'... did i choose the wrong software a long, long time ago? maybe. should we stick to workflows which do actually slow down everything? maybe not.

why the heck isn't that an absolute priority for NT to get us users what we need for working NOW. CORE is the future, i can't work with it now.

sorry for the mantra-style repeating of this all, but i'm having the impression that our requests are not getting answered with more than new vague promises.

markus

rakker16mm
04-21-2009, 02:47 PM
That pretty much sums it up.

Chuck if you're still perusing this thread, that's how we're feeling right now. We paid the same price our PC partners did and expect the same product. That should be what's on management's minds right now, not whether CORE members get something we've all already paid for first because they paid a privilege fee to get. This was something we were promised some time ago.

What a load. This constant "we're evaluating" commentary is getting very tiresome and unprofessional to say the least.

:agree: The PC users got to participate in the 9.3 & 9.6 64 bit beta without having to anti-up for Core. We Mac users on the other hand are no longer allowed to beta a 9.6 product until we pay for Core. This is something that has never happened before and I think it does show a difference in the way Newtek looks at its Mac base.

I have always been willing to wait a little longer for the latest toys to make it to the Mac, but I am a little irritated that I have to pay extra for the same privilege of beta testing our version of 9.6 64 bit. It hurts even more when I think how long Newtek has had a 64 bit version for the PC.

Chuck
04-21-2009, 02:49 PM
Chuck,

Historically everything comes for the Mac later than it does the PC. This fact well known by everyone. This situation is NOT unique to Newtek. There are in fact a great many companies where this happens to be the case. I think we Mac folk tolerate this to a degree because we understand that we are the niche crowed where as the PC has traditionally been main market. So be it, thus is the world made.

However I keep reading about Newtek's equal commitment toward both platforms and I would accept that on face value if it were not for the following:

1) LightWave v9 32/64-bit - Version 9.3.1 (Windows 2000/XP) VS LightWave v9 32-bit - Version 9.3.1 (Mac OS X Universal Binary)

2) LightWave v9.6 32/64-bit - Version 9.6 (Windows Vista/2000/XP) VS LightWave v9.6 32-bit - Version 9.6 (Mac OS X Universal Binary)

3) But if Mac users pay to participate in Hardcore then we will get the first crack at the Cocoa 64 bit version of 9.6 and then we will have parity with the PC platform... >on V9.6 soon to be replaced by Core<

I mean no disrespect toward Newtek. I am as much a fan boy for Lightwave as could be found anywhere but... the facts and the history do not seem to support the argument of equal commitment toward both platforms.

There's really a lot of context missing from those points.

How long after Windows 64-bit OS became available did we finally release 64-bit LightWave? There was a significant amount of time there as I recall, and we did not end up being first to make it, much as we would have liked to be.

How long after Windows became available in a fully 64-bit version did OSX become available in a fully 64-bit version, therefore allowing for a full port of the software?

In the end, will Mac users have had a shorter or longer wait after getting a fully 64-bit OS before getting the 64-bit port of LightWave for that OS? Not entirely sure where we are going to land here, but I think we are still actually in "shorter" territory at the moment.

Kuzey
04-21-2009, 02:51 PM
Bug fixing has always been done in-house, since this has never been an open-source product. :)

Testing will be done both within a closed beta group and in HardCORE, which is getting to be about the size of our previous Open Beta testing groups.

That might be true but they won't be able to find bugs like I do :)

So now, we are getting somewhere. This will mean that the plan for the Cocoa 9.6 process would likely be quick and not extended, so maybe 3 months or less.

How will bugs that are noticeable on my system but not reproducible on other systems...be dealt with? It took a few attempts to fix the shortcut menu bugs and the render status indicator on the icon from over shooting it's bounds etc.

Kuzey

toby
04-21-2009, 02:54 PM
That pretty much sums it up.

Chuck if you're still perusing this thread, that's how we're feeling right now. We paid the same price our PC partners did and expect the same product. That should be what's on management's minds right now, not whether CORE members get something we've all already paid for first because they paid a privilege fee to get. This was something we were promised some time ago.

What a load. This constant "we're evaluating" commentary is getting very tiresome and unprofessional to say the least.
Don't be too hard on him, there's only so much that any company can share with the public, and giving us a release date prematurely can be a disaster.

Also, the 64bit mac version the core members will get is a Beta version for testing, something that is technically not ready and should not be used for production, and may not suit your needs anyway.

But I agree that NT we are currently *not* getting our money's worth compared to pc users.

rakker16mm
04-21-2009, 02:59 PM
There's really a lot of context missing from those points.

How long after Windows 64-bit OS became available did we finally release 64-bit LightWave? There was a significant amount of time there as I recall, and we did not end up being first to make it, much as we would have liked to be.

How long after Windows became available in a fully 64-bit version did OSX become available in a fully 64-bit version, therfore allowing for a full port of the software?

In the end, will Mac users have had a shorter or longer wait after getting a fully 64-bit OS before getting the 64-bit port of LightWave for that OS? Not entirely sure where we are going to land here, but I think we are still actually in "shorter" territory at the moment.

OK Points taken and they are all good points.

Still Newtek is leveraging beta testing the 64 bit Cocoa version of 9.6. in order to incentivize participation in Core. As I have said before I am always willing to wait a little longer but I feel we are being treated differently than the PC crowed. I will probably be buying core anyway but it just strikes me as being a bit unequal. I would much prefer that the Mac user get to beta test their 64 bit version of 9.6. After all they paid the same price for the product.

littlewaves
04-21-2009, 03:01 PM
This constant "we're evaluating" commentary is getting very tiresome and unprofessional to say the least.

Damn right. That line is getting really old.

CGI Addict
04-21-2009, 03:13 PM
Don't be too hard on him, there's only so much that any company can share with the public, and giving us a release date prematurely can be a disaster.

Also, the 64bit mac version the core members will get is a Beta version for testing, something that is technically not ready and should not be used for production, and may not suit your needs anyway.

Premature release date? Are you kidding us? Premature release date?

Again, at risk of beating a dead horse, ANYONE WHO PAID FOR THE 9/x SERIES IS ENTITLED TO THE FIRST BETA RELEASE OF MAC 64 BIT if we're to take NewTek at it's word. Instead NewTek chose a path for release that was ill-planned at the very least, and a show of disrespect to those of us who have paid and been using LW for years now at worst.

I feel like I'm dealing with some cheap used car salesman on the corner.

This whole CORE thing has driven a wedge between us users. No disrespect to NewTek but Jay you guys really need to reassess who you get your PR and "development plans" from. That's who I would go after first with pink slips.

toby
04-21-2009, 03:22 PM
Premature release date? Are you kidding us? Premature release date?
Yes, give us a release date prematurely. Maybe you weren't here the last time that happened. It was a disaster.


Again, at risk of beating a dead horse, ANYONE WHO PAID FOR THE 9/x SERIES IS ENTITLED TO THE FIRST BETA RELEASE OF MAC 64 BIT if we're to take NewTek at it's word.
Did they say that somewhere?

lwanmtr
04-21-2009, 03:24 PM
OK Points taken and they are all good points.

Still Newtek is leveraging beta testing the 64 bit Cocoa version of 9.6. in order to incentivize participation in Core. As I have said before I am always willing to wait a little longer but I feel we are being treated differently than the PC crowed. I will probably be buying core anyway but it just strikes me as being a bit unequal. I would much prefer that the Mac user get to beta test their 64 bit version of 9.6. After all they paid the same price for the product.

I feel this way as well. We paid the same amount of money and we are licensed for 9.6...why cant we beta 64bit, then? It really wouldnt be much of a logistical setup to allow us to download mac-64 and reopen the 9.6 beta forums...that way we can beta 64bit without having the access to Core stuff.

I dont mean any disrespect to Chuck (who is taking alotta heat here) or Newtek..but while I will prolly join hardcore as soon as money permits, I have more desire to see 9.6 go 64bit...and the more users you can get to banging on it and finding bugs, the faster it will go gold....limiting the beta to HardCore is limiting the user base...especially given that most of the HardCore users will probably do more banging on Core than 9.6..Dont fool yourself, thats why they joined right away..Core..To be sure, there are some there who will do some banging on 9.6, but I think the ratio will be smaller than you think given the ratio of Mac -> PC users.

So, if management is still evaluating, they really should consider granting 9.6 users access to 64bit beta...It's not like they will lose money over it, as many of us are either in hardcore already or are planning to join anyway.

lwanmtr
04-21-2009, 03:26 PM
Again, at risk of beating a dead horse, ANYONE WHO PAID FOR THE 9/x SERIES IS ENTITLED TO THE FIRST BETA RELEASE OF MAC 64 BIT

Was this posted somewhere by NewTek? If so......

CGI Addict
04-21-2009, 03:29 PM
Yes, give us a release date prematurely. Maybe you weren't here the last time that happened. It was a disaster.

Did they say that somewhere?

How far back in the space and time does NewTek need to get us Mac users in-line with the PC crowd. There's no such thing as premature anymore, that excuse left station long ago.

Chilton, Jay, Jim, and anybody else with a company badge has stated that we'd get parity with the PC side of LW all along. There's been no smoke and mirrors on this topic until just recently when CORE landed in NewTekville. Now we're relegated to having to heaing about "re-evalutions" and updated "development" schemes that may or may not include those of use not plugged into CORE.

Chuck
04-21-2009, 03:38 PM
How long is this review been taking place, has it passed the four week stage yet or has it just started?

Kuzey

Actually, more to the point, they have finished reviewing matters and we will continue with our original plan that Cocoa LightWave v9.6.x will be a free update to v9 Mac owners. :)

lwanmtr
04-21-2009, 03:41 PM
Actually, more to the point, they have finished reviewing matters and we will continue with our original plan that Cocoa LightWave v9.6.x will be a free update to v9 Mac owners. :)

Thats good news :)

Now, about the beta...I (and others here) are still of the mind set that Cocoa beta should be open to current 9.6 owners and not just HardCore.

Chuck
04-21-2009, 03:50 PM
Thats good news :)

Now, about the beta...I (and others here) are still of the mind set that Cocoa beta should be open to current 9.6 owners and not just HardCore.

We've asked about that possibility. Will post when we have an answer.

lwanmtr
04-21-2009, 03:52 PM
Cool beans...if it'll help, I can send a case of Ding Dongs or Fruit Pies :)

CGI Addict
04-21-2009, 03:56 PM
Actually, more to the point, they have finished reviewing matters and we will continue with our original plan that Cocoa LightWave v9.6.x will be a free update to v9 Mac owners. :)


We've asked about that possibility. Will post when we have an answer.


All good to hear.


Cool beans...if it'll help, I can send a case of Ding Dongs or Fruit Pies.

Fruit Pies! Heading to the local mart right now.:D

Chuck
04-21-2009, 03:57 PM
Cool beans...if it'll help, I can send a case of Ding Dongs or Fruit Pies :)

You know, I haven't seen butter brickle ice cream since we moved from Kansas...on the other hand, I'm not calling the shots on this one and I don't know if that would help influence the powers-that-be. :p

lwanmtr
04-21-2009, 04:12 PM
it melts in the mail..and the post office really hates that...hehe

Scazzino
04-21-2009, 05:09 PM
Actually, more to the point, they have finished reviewing matters and we will continue with our original plan that Cocoa LightWave v9.6.x will be a free update to v9 Mac owners. :)

Great news Chuck! :thumbsup:
Mac LW user's worldwide rejoice! :boogiedow

allabulle
04-21-2009, 10:12 PM
Great news Chuck! :thumbsup:
Mac LW user's worldwide rejoice! :boogiedow

And some of us non-OSX users too feel the need of a strong LW community on any platform. The more people enjoying it and the better NewTek deals with everyone the more secure is my investment on the software. Having a great community is key in most situations while one is working with a software, and knowing how a company behaves with ALL their user base is informative to what could oneself expect from them if something goes eventually wrong. Oh, and my english sucks (!). Sorry guys.

Kuzey
04-22-2009, 06:51 AM
Actually, more to the point, they have finished reviewing matters and we will continue with our original plan that Cocoa LightWave v9.6.x will be a free update to v9 Mac owners. :)


That's more like the Newtek we know and love. For a minute there I thought I was in a never ending Autodesk nightmare :D

Kuzey

3dworks
04-22-2009, 06:59 AM
Actually, more to the point, they have finished reviewing matters and we will continue with our original plan that Cocoa LightWave v9.6.x will be a free update to v9 Mac owners. :)

ok, good to hear you stick to that plan - but the questions remains: when? we would be happy even to know a time frame hint. in one week, one month, a few months? of course, 'when it is ready' is not counting as an answer... :D

markus

Kuzey
04-22-2009, 07:13 AM
Talking about time frames, I wouldn't mind if the release was around the 4Q as long as people get access to the beta. Why not try to make the last version of LW the best version...I say :D

Otherwise, if it's a straight port with some bug fixes and no new features then I would think 2 to 3 months would be about right.


Kuzey

3dworks
04-22-2009, 07:17 AM
Talking about time frames, I wouldn't mind if the release was around the 4Q as long as people get access to the beta. Why not try to make the last version of LW the best version...I say :D
...

Kuzey

by that time, i would probably use another software as main 3d app ;) it would be just OK if the beta is functional and stable like the last 9.6 beta's...

remember that LW without third party plugs is like spaghetti without sauce. 3rd party developers will not likely start any conversions until the a release version is out.

cheers

markus

Otterman
04-22-2009, 07:19 AM
Ditto! Im with markus on that one!

Kuzey
04-22-2009, 07:49 AM
by that time, i would probably use another software as main 3d app ;) it would be just OK if the beta is functional and stable like the last 9.6 beta's...

remember that LW without third party plugs is like spaghetti without sauce. 3rd party developers will not likely start any conversions until the a release version is out.

cheers

markus


I didn't think in terms of plugin developers, but I'm sure some of them at least will be in the closed beta team testing the Cocoa version right now.

How about releasing a straight Cocoa port within a month but keep working on it till 4Q, making it better as they go. Or have a special developer release that gets handed out to third party developers straight away and updated every month with a new version until the final public release.


Kuzey

jayroth
04-22-2009, 08:33 AM
ok, good to hear you stick to that plan - but the questions remains: when? we would be happy even to know a time frame hint. in one week, one month, a few months? of course, 'when it is ready' is not counting as an answer... :D

markus

Sure it does, as that is the answer that we have at the moment. Would you rather get an answer based completely on guesses? As that is what you would get at the moment if you are looking for a specific date.

I know you have all been waiting rather patiently, and we appreciate that. We will have some more information for you soon, but we would prefer that information to be accurate, rather than happy talk.

DiscreetFX
04-22-2009, 11:47 AM
Many new developers only release their products on Mac OS X now and never even do a Windows version. Windows should no longer be priority #1, OS X and Windows should be on equal footing.

jwiede
04-22-2009, 03:49 PM
Sure it does, as that is the answer that we have at the moment. Would you rather get an answer based completely on guesses? As that is what you would get at the moment if you are looking for a specific date.Jay,

If by "guesses" you mean reasonably derived from current Lightwave project schedule release dates, then yes, I'd happily accept that kind of answer. Such an answer would actually satisfy many people, I suspect.

It isn't just about when 64-bit LW Mac ships, it's also about how long after that point third-party plugin developers ship ported plugins. Many won't even start porting until 64-bit LW Mac is released.

avkills
04-22-2009, 05:03 PM
I am going to miss Chilton; he had a great sense of humor about things and was active on the forums which was a real bonus.

Glad that Newtek still stands by the promises made.

-mark

jwiede
04-22-2009, 09:20 PM
Jay,

I'm not trying to be a smarta$$, but like Markus, my current workflow for lots of particles and/or high-density geometry requires bouncing back and forth between OSX and Windows. Sure, I'm a hobbyist, but my time is still valuable to me, and this mixed OS workflow wastes way too much of my scarce free time. If 64-bit Mac LW isn't coming in a reasonable timeframe, I'll be forced to switch to a 3D package that can provide a 64-bit version.

So I have to ask: Why is it that you are willing to make a firm release date estimate for CORE, on all platforms, but are unwilling to make any estimate for 64-bit Mac LW's release?

That just seems a bit odd.

3dworks
04-22-2009, 11:44 PM
Jay,

...
So I have to ask: Why is it that you are willing to make a firm release date estimate for CORE, on all platforms, but are unwilling to make any estimate for 64-bit Mac LW's release?

That just seems a bit odd.

good point, the answer is probably 'marketing'...

again, without the 64 bit versions of at least the most important plugins, like fprime, hd instance, lwcad or kray, LW UB 64 risks to be something not useful for production. that's why a beta version must be released asap, to enable developers to start porting their plugins to 64 bit. let's face it - probably no developer will do ports anymore if LW UB 64 will be released in a year, with CORE around the corner. not only because of no or not much economical return (well, i would even be ready to pay a reasonable update fee for any 64 bit plugin version!), but also because developers will then probably be already busy coding their stuff for CORE versions.



...
I know you have all been waiting rather patiently, and we appreciate that. We will have some more information for you soon, but we would prefer that information to be accurate, rather than happy talk.

good to hear this - and... looking forward!

markus

lwanmtr
04-22-2009, 11:45 PM
I'll have to agree here..again it is not meant as a slam or anything, but...as jweide just posted...you have made a clear definate delivery time of q4 for Core release, why not for 64bit 9.6?

We're all happy that it is moving forward and that it'll be a freebie for 9.x users, but it is kind of strange not be able to give an estimate..I'm assuming you've been working on it for some time and by now must have an idea of how long it will take to at least hit beta stage.

lwanmtr
04-22-2009, 11:50 PM
good point, the answer is probably 'marketing'...

again, without the 64 bit versions of at least the most important plugins, like fprime, hd instance, lwcad or kray, LW UB 64 risks to be something not useful for production. that's why a beta version must be released asap, to enable developers to start porting their plugins to 64 bit. let's face it - probably no developer will do ports anymore if LW UB 64 will be released in a year, with CORE around the corner. not only because of no or not much economical return (well, i would even be ready to pay a reasonable update fee for any 64 bit plugin version!), but also because developers will then probably be already busy coding their stuff for CORE versions.

markus

It does seem that the marketing dept. does like to drag it's feet..hehe.

As for the plugins..I rarely use any 3rd party plugs, so while I understand your statement, I dont think thats the case...3rd party devs will understand that Core is still 2 years out from being a production ready platform, so they would prolly develop 64bit versions of their mac plugs.

But, of course, if Cocoa is still a year away, then they probably would have to really think about it first...

harlan
04-23-2009, 12:02 AM
WHAT??? Well #### me sideways, Chilton is gone? Awww man, I'm sorry to hear that, he's a cool dude.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, I'm slow to respond, bugger off!! ;)

lwanmtr
04-23-2009, 12:17 AM
You might be happy to know we've landed people on the moon..lol

littlewaves
04-23-2009, 04:31 AM
You might be happy to know we've landed people on the moon..lol

dude? you actually fell for that? c'mon

Kuzey
04-23-2009, 06:21 AM
A couple things Newtek can do is reveal the time frame of when it will move into the hardcore/open beta phase. And let people know that 3rd party developers are part of the closed beta team and therefore are up to speed on the Cocoa development....which I'm sure they are.

Kuzey

hdace
04-23-2009, 10:36 AM
Wow. I leave for a week and all hell breaks loose. NT sucks the big one for dumping Chilton.

avkills
04-23-2009, 12:40 PM
Wow. I leave for a week and all hell breaks loose. NT sucks the big one for dumping Chilton.

Maybe it was mutual.

-mark

-EsHrA-
04-24-2009, 04:48 AM
Maybe it was mutual.

-mark


well, probably not...but that wasnt the point.
its the same ol' same ol' behavior of nt.

mlon

avkills
04-24-2009, 10:47 AM
well, probably not...but that wasnt the point.
its the same ol' same ol' behavior of nt.

mlon

The business side of me says move on; and maybe Chilton was just not a good fit for the Newtek corporate culture. Only Newtek knows for sure.

Personally I liked Chilton a lot; not only was he openly honest about what was actually going on -- he had a great sense of humor and genuinely liked the Mac and OS X; and took the little ribbing we in the Mac community do with a grain of salt.

-mark

Andyjaggy
04-24-2009, 11:12 AM
Yeah that's too bad, but without knowing the details we can't really say if we should be mad at NT or not. Though with a the previous track record you have to wonder. :D

Rollie Hudson
04-24-2009, 11:43 AM
Chuck, thanks for the reassurances about Newtek's commitment to Lightwave on the Mac OSX platform. We've invested years of work and lots of money and time on Lightwave on OSX and would hate to have another Ligthwave/Amiga platform kind of experience. Keep up the good work at Newtek and all the best to Chilton.

jayroth
04-24-2009, 12:24 PM
its the same ol' same ol' behavior of nt.

mlon

How so? Employee rosters change all the time, at all companies. Any changes that we would make along these lines are never intended to stall anything or hurt anyone. Quite the opposite, in fact. And, has been said elsewhere, we also wish Chilton all the best.

Nicolas Jordan
04-24-2009, 04:47 PM
Thats good news :)

Now, about the beta...I (and others here) are still of the mind set that Cocoa beta should be open to current 9.6 owners and not just HardCore.

Ya, would only make sense to me that all 9.6 owners get to beta test it even if they aren't part of hardcore. Just my thought. :)

sublimationman
04-29-2009, 12:43 AM
Wow, I stop reading the forum for a few weeks and everything goes to hell!!

Well I wish Chilton all the best. What little we conversed he was a true advocate of listening to the end user.

eblu
04-29-2009, 02:21 PM
Well of course it is.

The problem is that you're going the wrong way. Think C++ based cross platform code using a Cocoa GUI. That's where it gets hairy. Or a C based app using Cocoa for that matter.
Calling a C based API from Obj-C/C++ based code is trivial - the other way around can be _very_ tricky.

Again, this is not what I said nor implied. I said it is easier to interface to from cross platform code. That's an entirely different matter.

Cool, I'd love to see a major C based cross platform app use Cocoa then...

Are you saying there is no need to actually use Cocoa (nor Obj-C) to create a 64-bit GUI then? Why doesn't anybody else say so?

Cheers
Mike


I'm going the wrong way? Mike, I Know you are a very good programmer, but I see this misunderstanding time and time again. Let me paraphrase a pretty popular mac developer here: if its difficult, you are probably doing it wrong. I'm not going the wrong way here. Windows programmers seem to have a blind spot that makes it impossible for them to do things the correct way. And by "correct" I mean "efficient" and "easy". let me take screamernet as a concrete example, because it Perfecktly fits a Particularly early workflow for Making 64 bit apps.

heres how Screamernet could have been 64 bit on day 1 with tiger, depending upon its intensity of reliance on legacy code.
1. write you're platform agnostic C Tool.
2. create a Unix tool in Xcode, set it for compiling as a 64bit app.
3. make sure you're hooked up to the right libs
4. compile.
5. if you want a GUI, make a New cocoa app that controls the unix tool.

http://developer.apple.com/MacOsX/64bit.html

approximately 5 hours total for someone to generate the command line tool, as long as screamernet is in decent shape.

And for the controller: the first time I wrote Easy (screamernet controller app), it took about 7 days of spare time at work, and it controls screamernet the HARD way, as its interface is a little awkward when trying to get feedback. the second time I wrote easy, it took about 4 days to get it up and running, because i had to teach myself something rather complicated. I'm a mediocre programmer. easy now automagically controls Screamernet, Maya's renderer, and one or two others... its drag and drop, and automatically figures out all the details. you just stack em up, and hit go. easy figures out the content path, type of renderer to use, and everything else.

Cocoa is one of Several GUI wrapper options on Os x, and it should always be used As a Wrapper, not the other way around. You want to address C AND Obj-C? you make an Obj-C app. You make a cocoa app. you make a Cocoa Window and you Draw inside of it using any of the Slew of drawing technologies available to mac osx, which all use standard coding practices, and hardware acceleration where avail. (for ex: OpenGl, quartz, cocoa, Core animation, etc...) the benefit of using Cocoa as a wrapper? LESS CODE. typically you wind up writing only 10 % of the code you would write if you were using Carbon. And that means, less time worrying about making a window, and more time figuring out what goes IN IT... in whatever way you want to.

If you follow modern app design techniques, you will separate the Model, the view and the control (MVC). in cross platform apps, the vast majority of your platform agnostic code will be in the Model.

Screamernet's functionality (the renderer itself) is its Model. the view is the UI (command line interface) and control is the glue code that ties the UI to the model. If you have done your homework, you should ALREADY have some natural boundaries In the way your application is Laid out, which allows you to Easily replace the View portion of the App with a new One. This is what the LW team was doing for the last few years to LW. in essence taking a pile of spaghetti and making a few smaller, neater piles of spaghetti with a few strands linking them together. They did this because it is More important for Platform agnostic Apps than any other kind of app. its shortens dev cycles, and makes managing bugs EASIER.

Apple has offered a tiered List of suggestions for developers who think they may port to the mac os, which basically make it so that You don't run into these issues of trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.

heres a good place to start:
http://developer.apple.com/documentation/Porting/Conceptual/win32porting/Articles/3dgraphics.html#//apple_ref/doc/uid/20002356-BABJCJHH


now as far as windowing technologies:
os x supports these natively:
xWindows (making mac os MORE like linux than Windows ever could be)
Java Based windows (and yes You CAN mix That With C/C++, just don't ask me how)
AGL
GLUT
Applescript
ruby
python

ok ok some of them are scripting languages, so what?
Python Has a direct link to hardware accelerated drawing on mac os X.
you could write a compositor in Python on the mac that does lens flares (as an example) in real time. AGL, btw is OpenGL's platform agnostic Bridge to a window... you don't even need to address Cocoa to get it.

the point is, Os X has a host of options for developers looking to shoehorn their app into the os. Theres a learning curve, and its necessary to accept that it WILL_NOT_BE_LIKE_WINDOWS, but its really not as difficult as all the PC Centric developers keep trying to make it sound. I get it. its not what you're used to. But no one is forcing you to do things the wrong way.

lwanmtr
04-29-2009, 02:53 PM
While I'm not a programmer, that makes some sense to me....I think alot of windows developers just dont want to invest in a Mac. I have asked nearly every tool developer about Mac versions of plugs and such..and while I get a few who say they are working on one (usually through someone else doing the conversion), most say that Mac development is alot more difficult..of course, I dont have the coding knowledge to be able to tell them otherwise.

Lightwolf
04-29-2009, 04:02 PM
..of course, I dont have the coding knowledge to be able to tell them otherwise.
No worries... apparently nor do I... after having ported roughly half of the existing UB plugins (and being the first third party to actually release one).

Cheers,
Mike

archijam
04-29-2009, 04:04 PM
No worries... apparently nor do I... after having ported roughly half of the existing UB plugins (and being the first third party to actually release one).

Bah. Mac hater! :tongue:



;)!

Lightwolf
04-29-2009, 04:26 PM
I'm going the wrong way? Mike, I Know you are a very good programmer, but I see this misunderstanding time and time again. Let me paraphrase a pretty popular mac developer here: if its difficult, you are probably doing it wrong.
Probably:


inline void OpenURL(const std::string urlString)
{
ICInstance icInstance;
if (ICStart ( &icInstance, '????') == noErr)
{
ConstStr255Param hint (0x0);
long l = urlString.length();
long s = 0;
ICLaunchURL (icInstance, hint, urlString.c_str(), l, &s, &l);
ICStop (icInstance);
}
};

vs.


inline void OpenURL(const std::string urlString)
{
ShellExecuteA( NULL, "open", urlString.c_str(), NULL, "c:\
};

But I'm sure you can point me to a Carbon version that is as easy as the PC one.


And by "correct" I mean "efficient" and "easy". let me take screamernet as a concrete example, because it Perfecktly fits a Particularly early workflow for Making 64 bit apps.
Erm, it also doesn't touch any of the problems when developing a proper, GUI based, completely 64-bit OSX app... Which is what I'd consider easy and efficient.


heres how Screamernet could have been 64 bit on day 1 with tiger, depending upon its intensity of reliance on legacy code.
1. write you're platform agnostic C Tool.
2. create a Unix tool in Xcode, set it for compiling as a 64bit app.
3. make sure you're hooked up to the right libs
4. compile.
Which immediately breaks all plugins that use native GUI functionality... or even access parts of Carbon for other reasons. Even if they don't need to as a render node... they still need to link to a 64-bit version of the library.


Cocoa is one of Several GUI wrapper options on Os x, and it should always be used As a Wrapper, not the other way around. You want to address C AND Obj-C? you make an Obj-C app. You make a cocoa app.
Precisely.

you make a Cocoa Window and you Draw inside of it using any of the Slew of drawing technologies available to mac osx, which all use standard coding practices, and hardware acceleration where avail. (for ex: OpenGl, quartz, cocoa, Core animation, etc...)

Cool, so I either cross platform code to use OpenGL for everything... or break out, write an extra set of wrappers on Obj-C to interface with the native, cross platform code written in a more common language.


If you follow modern app design techniques, you will separate the Model, the view and the control (MVC). in cross platform apps, the vast majority of your platform agnostic code will be in the Model.
That still means you have to switch to a completely separate coding language and find ways to interface it with your cross platform code.
I mean, there's a reason it took NT so long for a native Cocoa port of LW... and there's an even bigger reason as to why they're using Qt now.


Apple has offered a tiered List of suggestions for developers who think they may port to the mac os, which basically make it so that You don't run into these issues of trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.

Thanks... I've read all of these a few times in the past years... and most of them are a square peg in a round hole ;)


ok ok some of them are scripting languages, so what?
Yup, only X11 and to any extend GLUT are a "windowing" technology. And X11 isn't really suited to write a native OSX app, is it?
Java is cross platform by definition... which is allright for certain non-performance critical apps (it depends on what you need really).


the point is, Os X has a host of options for developers looking to shoehorn their app into the os. Theres a learning curve, and its necessary to accept that it WILL_NOT_BE_LIKE_WINDOWS, but its really not as difficult as all the PC Centric developers keep trying to make it sound. I get it. its not what you're used to. But no one is forcing you to do things the wrong way.
The thing is... once you look at it there's little left if you want a proper OS X native 64-bit app (at least anything of a complexity that goes beyond a few wrapped scripts). Actually, there's only Cocoa left (unless you write a game). Back to square one.

Cheers,
Mike

eblu
05-01-2009, 02:56 PM
Probably:

The thing is... once you look at it there's little left if you want a proper OS X native 64-bit app (at least anything of a complexity that goes beyond a few wrapped scripts). Actually, there's only Cocoa left (unless you write a game). Back to square one.

Cheers,
Mike

Mike,



OSStatus err;
err = LSOpenCFURLRef(CFURLCreateWithString( NULL, CFSTR("http://www.apple.com"), NULL);


LSOpenCFURLRef actually provides the functionality to ICLaunchURL anyway
so cut out the middle man.

but, if you wanted to do it in cocoa...


[[NSWorkspace sharedWorkspace] openFile:pathString];

or if you wanted to get fancy:



[[NSWorkspace sharedWorkspace] openFile:pathString
withApplication:nameOfApplicationString];


Apple hasn’t been working on it in a vacuum. They’ve been paying attention, and they’ve gone through and tried to set things up to make things easier. time and time again, I hear from developers who are still trying to work on X as if it Was os 9 and they have a hard time. Of course its difficult, you are refusing to do things easier.

Cocoa Is Not different from C/C++ it is an extension to them. an add-on, a plugin, an interface library... that just happens to take care of a lot of the glue code For you. the stuff that you don’t want to code anyway.

there is a toll, nothing good comes for free.
you have to design your app using MODERN techniques. even QT requires this. Build into your design: a separation of function and interface.
you have to familiarize yourself with cocoa methodology. For someone with your skill set, it wouldn’t be as hard as it was for me.
applications that need cocoa, are built On it. you do it their way, because you get a whole host of free things. You can potentially just include cocoa in your carbon app, but the free stuff isn’t automatic.

but hey, the last BIG holdout in Carbon (quicktime) is jumping ship to the Core layer. the writing is on the wall. Carbon is going away (along with those weird pascal workflow "enhancements"). if you can’t put something like QT into your dev flow, spend some time with the free Docs, tutorials, and software. when Carbon is Finally lopped off the end of the os, you’ll be happy you did.

re: your quote... ummm... no. the message from apple is: use cocoa to get the interface running... then use whatever you want to write the meat of the app. You feel confined to Cocoa, but thats at your own insistence.

Hopper
05-01-2009, 03:17 PM
Java is cross platform by definition... which is allright for certain non-performance critical apps (it depends on what you need really).
That's the way it used to be. Not anymore. JIT is built in since 1.5. You won't notice any performance differences between C/C++ code and Java as long as you are using the same constructs. In some instances, Java is actually faster because of optimized garbage collection and overall better memory management. Yes, the JVM can still be a bit heavy, but when you think of the dynamic libraries you use in C/C++, they are almost equivalent. And with everyone cramming 8GB of RAM in their systems, it's not so much of an issue any longer.

Lightwolf
05-01-2009, 03:31 PM
That's the way it used to be. Not anymore. JIT is built in since 1.5.
I know... however, you'll still find that mathematically heavy apps still run faster on compiled code as opposed to JIT. Which might be due to the fact that JIT isn't as mature... but it's still the case at least for the lest set of benchmarks I looked at.

JIT is theoretically at an advantage as it can optimize for the current host - but so far it hasn't surfaced for most applications.

Cheers,
Mike

Lightwolf
05-01-2009, 03:35 PM
OSStatus err;
err = LSOpenCFURLRef(CFURLCreateWithString( NULL, CFSTR("http://www.apple.com"), NULL);


Which doesn't change much if you look at my code. Most of the lines (in this case) come from providing it a native language stl string - which is why I posted the complete function. Which is also why I used ICLaunchURL in the first place, no hassle creating a CFSTRef.
Is LSOpenCFURLRef




[[NSWorkspace sharedWorkspace] openFile:pathString];


That will be fun once 64-bit OS X LW forces me to switch to Cocoa. I'm looking forward to interfacing my C++ LW SDK wrapper with it... Well, maybe not.


Apple hasn’t been working on it in a vacuum. They’ve been paying attention, and they’ve gone through and tried to set things up to make things easier. time and time again, I hear from developers who are still trying to work on X as if it Was os 9 and they have a hard time. Of course its difficult, you are refusing to do things easier.

Which is.... again, totally beside my point. I'm just trying to get it to do what I want it to do with the minimum hassle and research required.


Cocoa Is Not different from C/C++ it is an extension to them. an add-on, a plugin, an interface library... that just happens to take care of a lot of the glue code For you. the stuff that you don’t want to code anyway.
Erm, no. Cocoa is an API based on Objective-C. Objective C is an extension to C but not to C++.
I have a feeling we're talking about completely different things and issues here. Sorry for that, I'm afraid I might not have been clear enough.


re: your quote... ummm... no. the message from apple is: use cocoa to get the interface running... then use whatever you want to write the meat of the app. You feel confined to Cocoa, but thats at your own insistence.
I feel confined because it is hard to integrate with cross platform cores, and that's mainly due to the language choice (which is the advantage of Qt here, or wxWidgets, as they both give you 64-bit Cocoa but without the hassle of needing to interface two languages).
Heck, the last time I had to jump through hoops like that was writing plugins for Maya (which has a similarily quaint architecture... MEL for the GUI, C++ for the core of the plugin)... and it's an experience I'd rather not repeat...

Cheers,
Mike

jwiede
05-02-2009, 07:43 PM
Erm, no. Cocoa is an API based on Objective-C. Objective C is an extension to C but not to C++.Mike, just as a quick aside, better C++ interop was the motivation for the Objective-C++ augmentations...

http://developer.apple.com/DOCUMENTATION/Cocoa/Conceptual/ObjectiveC/Articles/ocCPlusPlus.html

What are the precise Cocoa API interop problems you're referencing with C++?

Having written a fair amount of hybrid C++/Obj-C++ code, I don't really see C++ language interop with Cocoa as the massive obstacle you seem to portray. Also, reading back through Chilton's posts about the port, his main concerns appeared to lie elsewhere as well.

The real problem with Mac LW (IMO) seems to be one of passion and motivation. Chilton was passionate about Cocoa and Mac, something I've not really seen in other Newtek folks' comments online. He was excited to be given the chance to do the Cocoa port. I know a big part of my concern over his leaving is that I haven't seen anyone else at Newtek with that level of passion for Mac. They may exist, but I haven't seen their passion.

Newtek should want Mac customers to have the same experience, and develop the same product loyalty as PC customers. Their Mac developers should be passionate about achieving that goal. If Newtek really wants us to believe their commitment to the Mac platform for the future, then they need to prioritize delivery on their V9 64-bit Mac LW promise first.

After all, if Mac customers don't feel they're getting what they paid for with Mac LW (and for V9, 64-bit seems to be a key deliverable in many Mac users' minds), why would they invest further in Mac CORE?

Edit: In case anyone wonders, the lack of 64-bit Mac LW delivery was a key reason I asked for (and received) a refund for my HardCORE membership. It felt wrong to invest further in Mac Lightwave until they fulfilled their existing (and paid) commitments.

virtualcomposer
05-02-2009, 09:00 PM
I can't believe he's not at Newtek anymore. Makes me a little afraid about the Mac development especially since the merge of the other companies. I tried to look up Chilton on facebook but didn't see his facebook name. Anyone know it?

jayroth
05-02-2009, 09:45 PM
The real problem with Mac LW (IMO) seems to be one of passion and motivation. Chilton was passionate about Cocoa and Mac, something I've not really seen in other Newtek folks' comments online. He was excited to be given the chance to do the Cocoa port. I know a big part of my concern over his leaving is that I haven't seen anyone else at Newtek with that level of passion for Mac. They may exist, but I haven't seen their passion.

Newtek should want Mac customers to have the same experience, and develop the same product loyalty as PC customers. Their Mac developers should be passionate about achieving that goal. If Newtek really wants us to believe their commitment to the Mac platform for the future, then they need to prioritize delivery on their V9 64-bit Mac LW promise first.

After all, if Mac customers don't feel they're getting what they paid for with Mac LW (and for V9, 64-bit seems to be a key deliverable in many Mac users' minds), why would they invest further in Mac CORE?


John, with all due respect, check my history. ElectricImage Animation System, which I created along with Mark Granger and another partner, was the first viable Mac-based 3D application. For many years, we chased away other vendors attempting to come into our space: vendors such as Macromind, AT&T and others. All along, we were told by everyone, "you can't do that on a Mac." Well we proved them wrong, and literally built the Mac 3D market on our own (with no help from Apple, sadly.)

Years later, along comes LightWave. LightWave was the first viable competitor ElectricImage encountered: viable, in that it was an effective threat against the company and the product. Now, when you compared the two from a "Mac-like" perspective, ElectricImage, having been created on the Mac, was far more "Mac-like" than LightWave was at that time. It was faster, and much more reliable. It was also much more expensive, and catered to the film market, whereas LightWave's big push in that era was TV effects. Eventually, LightWave proved very damaging to ElectricImage.

Today's LightWave is far more "Mac-like" than the version that existed back when I was in charge of Electric Image, and a much better product overall. It is, in large part, because I put the gears into motion to make it that way, and one of the things that I did was to beef up the Mac team -- in part, by bringing in Chilton. When it comes to passion for the Mac, Chilton has it by the bucketload, no doubt. He would likely make Guy Kawasaki proud in that regard. But I can also tell you that the less visible members of our team all want the Mac version of LightWave to be great -- that was not exclusive to Chilton by any means. They just have a different way of going about the effort to get to the goal.

I find your arguments conveniently ignore the fact that most Mac users have expressed to us that v9.6 is the best Mac version of LightWave ever. Chilton was part of that, but so was the rest of the team. Chilton was never a one man show, OK?

You are entitled to your opinion, of course, but for you to castigate our efforts based upon the departure of one team member, well, that is really short-sighted in my book, and incredibly unfair to the efforts that NewTek as a whole have put into the Mac in the last several years.

Hey, we all want the Mac to be equal to the PC version of LightWave. And, for the most part, it actually is. The only things that are not included in the Mac version of LightWave are PC-specific (as in, those aspects cannot work on the Mac), or where external vendors have chosen not to support the Mac, which is out of our control, or where Apple itself has fallen short (such as graphics card drivers on the Mac, for example...). In large part, a driving effort behind LightWave CORE is equality-- equality on all our platforms that we support (as much as a specific platform allows.) Our history with v9, especially with v9.6, should prove our intent, regardless of staffing changes. Every company has them, as you know yours does...

We look at all of our Mac customers as our Mac product champions. Many key Mac users are part of our internal testing group, and they make their voices heard all the time. The best way for us to make everyone happy is to deliver a great product, and that is what we are going to do.

That said, I will not claim any sort of blind passion for the Mac. Honestly, I cannot -- I have been burned too many times by Apple initiatives which have been aggressively pursued for a year or two, and then ultimately abandoned (Quickdraw 3D anyone? There are so many more... oh, wait, don't forget about CARBON...) These days, we take a much more pragmatic approach, a "reasoned passion," if you will. You could say we have grown up. Note -- grown ups tend to make better products in the long run, you know.

So for those of you who do not find this explanation suitable enough, I am sure you will continue to post your concerns about the departure of one member of our development team. For those of you who understand and respect the effort that we have put into the Mac over the last few years, I hope that you find this post suitable to address your concerns.

To sum it up, it really comes down to this: our focus is to actually deliver a great product for the Mac, rather than talking about it alot -- talk is cheap. Delivery is what you can use.

jwiede
05-03-2009, 03:58 AM
I find your arguments conveniently ignore the fact that most Mac users have expressed to us that v9.6 is the best Mac version of LightWave ever. Chilton was part of that, but so was the rest of the team. Chilton was never a one man show, OK?Jay, for the record, I have praised 9.6 repeatedly in the past, both privately to the developers, and publicly in the forums...

example (http://www.newtek.com/forums/showthread.php?p=811048&highlight=9.6#post811048)

I'm happy to do so again, though: Mac LW v9.6 is the best version of Mac Lightwave to date. I won't say "best version ever", because I'd like to believe the next release will be even better than v9.6.

As to Chilton being a "one man show", in terms of Newtek visibility in the Mac forums, he pretty much was a one man show. I wholly believe Dave and the others are very capable developers, but Chilton was doing more than just development. Many of those efforts outside development played a big role in improving Mac customers' belief in Newtek's Mac commitment. He told us how solutions would be executed to solve Mac LW problems, and the Mac team (including him) executed on them. His communications demonstrated commitment to Mac LW, instead of just stating it, if that makes any sense.

If you look at the postings in this thread, you'll see many Mac users expressing how valued Chilton's presence here has been, and their concern that nobody will fill his role. I'm far from the first to say so here. Yet virtually all of the Newtek responses have focused on how he can be replaced as a developer. What about the role he held as a technical liaison to Mac users in the Mac forums?

IMO, one of the key reasons Mac users took the prior deferral of 64-bit Mac LW so well was due to Chilton's willingness to explain why it was necessary, and committing to expedited future delivery. If we were receiving that level of information now from a Newtek replacement, I think the level of discontent over his departure (and absence of 64-bit Mac LW) would be much reduced.

You are entitled to your opinion, of course, but for you to castigate our efforts based upon the departure of one team member, well, that is really short-sighted in my book, and incredibly unfair to the efforts that NewTek as a whole have put into the Mac in the last several years.I am not castigating the efforts of the Mac team, nor can I easily see how you come to that conclusion.

My issue is with Newtek management, who appear to be focusing the Mac team efforts on CORE before all the v9 deliverables have been released, in particular before the critical 64-bit Mac LW release. I also think Newtek management has let the quality and quantity of technical communication with the general Mac community slip since Chilton's departure. Neither of these issues are castigation of the Mac development team.

As a Mac LW user, I'm constantly hitting limits that exist on Mac LW and don't exist on PC LW solely because PC has a 64-bit build available. I'm making a big deal of this particular issue because I'd prefer to use Lightwave on my Mac, want to see Lightwave succeed, and 64-bit Mac LW is important to both, IMO.

If I didn't care, I'd be spending my time elsewhere, instead of trying to explain what is bothering me as a customer, and what Newtek can do to fix it.


So for those of you who do not find this explanation suitable enough, I am sure you will continue to post your concerns about the departure of one member of our development team. For those of you who understand and respect the effort that we have put into the Mac over the last few years, I hope that you find this post suitable to address your concerns.

To sum it up, it really comes down to this: our focus is to actually deliver a great product for the Mac, rather than talking about it alot -- talk is cheap. Delivery is what you can use.The issue here isn't just about the departure of a member of the Mac development team, and I've repeatedly tried to make that clear. It's about communication, and follow-through on past communications.

I'm glad to hear Newtek's focus is on delivering a great product for the Mac, but I'd rather you first finish delivering all of the last product you sold me. If completing that delivery will take a significant amount of time, please give me some idea of how long you will need to complete it. Neither of those requests appear to be unreasonable customer expectations in light of your prior commitments.

lwanmtr
05-03-2009, 04:33 AM
I have to agree, here. I am not trying to say there are no mac developers left either...but Chilton was a figure we could look to, who would not only help out, but would explain things (often in english that us non programmers could grasp). As John says..it's about communication.

On 64bit Mac 9.6, it really isnt unreasonable to ask for a project delivery time...We all know that any date would be just an estimate..but giving an estimate is a little better than not..by not giving any information about when you expect to release (or even go to beta), it almost gives the impression that it's not gonna happen...I'm not saying thats what I think, just thats the impression it gives.

I'm quite pleased with the direction LW is going and will no doubt go core (soonish)..Also good to hear from You and Chuck's posts that we arent forgotten..but remember Mac users are skiddish when there are sudden changes like this, and we dont get any kinda official news for week about it..hehe.

jwiede
05-03-2009, 04:49 AM
That said, I will not claim any sort of blind passion for the Mac. Honestly, I cannot -- I have been burned too many times by Apple initiatives which have been aggressively pursued for a year or two, and then ultimately abandoned (Quickdraw 3D anyone? There are so many more... oh, wait, don't forget about CARBON...) These days, we take a much more pragmatic approach, a "reasoned passion," if you will. You could say we have grown up. Note -- grown ups tend to make better products in the long run, you know.Since you raised the Carbon issue, I think it's worth a comment...

Apple stated from the beginning that the Carbon APIs were transitional APIs intended to allow developers to quickly migrate existing apps, and maintain revenue, while they undertook the longer task of Cocoa migration. Instead, many developers, particularly larger ones, moved their apps to Carbon but never started Cocoa migrations.

The events around Carbon-64's demise appear to be have been shaped as much by that lack of Cocoa migrations, as by anything else. Canceling Carbon-64 certainly did a better job of making larger developers (finally) start Cocoa migrations, than years of Apple telling them to do so. It brought deprecation and eventual removal of Carbon back into the realm of possibility, and that's a very good thing for developers and users, for many reasons.

Many of those who blame Apple for canceling Carbon-64 were really hurt by their own failure to follow Apple's long-standing guidance on developing for Cocoa. They'd had 5+ years by then to target Cocoa and/or Core* APIs, but didn't consider doing so a priority until it meant they couldn't join the 64-bit party.

Kuzey
05-03-2009, 06:02 AM
I can't believe he's not at Newtek anymore. Makes me a little afraid about the Mac development especially since the merge of the other companies. I tried to look up Chilton on facebook but didn't see his facebook name. Anyone know it?

Chilton Webb

Kuzey

jayroth
05-03-2009, 11:02 AM
Jay, for the record, I have praised 9.6 repeatedly in the past, both privately to the developers, and publicly in the forums...

example (http://www.newtek.com/forums/showthread.php?p=811048&highlight=9.6#post811048)

I'm happy to do so again, though: Mac LW v9.6 is the best version of Mac Lightwave to date. I won't say "best version ever", because I'd like to believe the next release will be even better than v9.6.

As to Chilton being a "one man show", in terms of Newtek visibility in the Mac forums, he pretty much was a one man show. I wholly believe Dave and the others are very capable developers, but Chilton was doing more than just development. Many of those efforts outside development played a big role in improving Mac customers' belief in Newtek's Mac commitment. He told us how solutions would be executed to solve Mac LW problems, and the Mac team (including him) executed on them. His communications demonstrated commitment to Mac LW, instead of just stating it, if that makes any sense.

If you look at the postings in this thread, you'll see many Mac users expressing how valued Chilton's presence here has been, and their concern that nobody will fill his role. I'm far from the first to say so here. Yet virtually all of the Newtek responses have focused on how he can be replaced as a developer. What about the role he held as a technical liaison to Mac users in the Mac forums?

IMO, one of the key reasons Mac users took the prior deferral of 64-bit Mac LW so well was due to Chilton's willingness to explain why it was necessary, and committing to expedited future delivery. If we were receiving that level of information now from a Newtek replacement, I think the level of discontent over his departure (and absence of 64-bit Mac LW) would be much reduced.
I am not castigating the efforts of the Mac team, nor can I easily see how you come to that conclusion.

My issue is with Newtek management, who appear to be focusing the Mac team efforts on CORE before all the v9 deliverables have been released, in particular before the critical 64-bit Mac LW release. I also think Newtek management has let the quality and quantity of technical communication with the general Mac community slip since Chilton's departure. Neither of these issues are castigation of the Mac development team.

As a Mac LW user, I'm constantly hitting limits that exist on Mac LW and don't exist on PC LW solely because PC has a 64-bit build available. I'm making a big deal of this particular issue because I'd prefer to use Lightwave on my Mac, want to see Lightwave succeed, and 64-bit Mac LW is important to both, IMO.

If I didn't care, I'd be spending my time elsewhere, instead of trying to explain what is bothering me as a customer, and what Newtek can do to fix it.

The issue here isn't just about the departure of a member of the Mac development team, and I've repeatedly tried to make that clear. It's about communication, and follow-through on past communications.

I'm glad to hear Newtek's focus is on delivering a great product for the Mac, but I'd rather you first finish delivering all of the last product you sold me. If completing that delivery will take a significant amount of time, please give me some idea of how long you will need to complete it. Neither of those requests appear to be unreasonable customer expectations in light of your prior commitments.

John,

with all due respect, you have expressed these protests after Chilton had departed, and did so in a manner that caused me to draw the conclusions I discussed in my post. Your request for a refund was put in a similar vein. Had Chilton not departed, I doubt you would have asked for a refund in the first place. NewTek's policies towards the Mac have not changed at all, so what other issue could it be?

Now, as far as NewTek delivering on promises, we have a good track record on this regard. Nowhere else in the industry have you seen as much good will and value to a product as you have seen with NewTek, especially in the LW9 cycle. The argument of some offense at a lack of delivery of a particular thing is tired. Companies do their best to deliver on the expectations from their customers, as NewTek does. Most of the time, NewTek does deliver. On occasions, not.

The issue you have here, and one echoed by others in this thread, appears to be Cocoa and CORE. As we have stated earlier in this thread, the Cocoa build will be no charge. And since you insist on perpetuating the notion that CORE has prevented work from occurring on Cocoa, it has not; Cocoa work resumed the day that we shipped v9.6. It had been put on hiatus to get v9.6 out the door to all platforms, as the project was taking far longer than estimates had projected, and there was a likelihood that waiting for Cocoa would have caused the overall 9.6 product to be delayed for months longer. Even still, after Cocoa was the sole focus, the product still went far longer than estimates had projected. See where I am going with this, folks?

You ask for estimates, and as I have commented in other posts, I do not feel comfortable offering estimates when previous estimates have been fantasies. Currently, the team is reviewing everything, and I hope that the next estimate I receive will be reasonably accurate. When I have an estimate that I have confidence in, I will pass it along to you. I can predict that you will likely not have a Cocoa release for at least another month or two. And CORE work has little bearing on that whatsoever.

For those of you who prefer that we do nothing on CORE until Cocoa is released, I again emphasize that these are two separate projects with different teams. The only overlap that occurred had to do with the installers for the Mac version of CORE -- here again, the intent was to do a simultaneous delivery, as all of you have asked for, yet when that did not happen, well, you made sure we heard about it. You are taking opposite sides of the same position...

CGI Addict
05-03-2009, 11:14 AM
John,

I can predict that you will likely not have a Cocoa release for at least another month or two. And CORE work has little bearing on that whatsoever.

For those of you who prefer that we do nothing on CORE until Cocoa is released, I again emphasize that these are two separate projects with different teams. The only overlap that occurred had to do with the installers for the Mac version of CORE -- here again, the intent was to do a simultaneous delivery, as all of you have asked for, yet when that did not happen, well, you made sure we heard about it. You are taking opposite sides of the same position...

A couple of months wait sounds a bit like a timetable and one that seems reasonable to me.

lwanmtr
05-03-2009, 05:59 PM
I think the main thing that occured here was that a bomb was dropped after a long silence..

Mac users relented and agreed that 32bit needed to be a stable product..and kudos for doing that...(even if there are still some issues like scene editor and load from scene crashing lw)...We have the most stable version of lw to date..yaay.

But after 9.6 was released we didnt get any real news or info, until, well we found out that the person who we had the most contact with reguarding mac-lw was gone..so it did kind of cause alot of folks to begin to worry about what was going on...especially since all we started hearing about is Core..9.6 seemed to drop off the radar..

And while we can appreciate that cocoa is taking a bit more than you (or we) would like, all we are asking is for a bit more communication..There is also the confusion about where we should be posting about bugs we are still finding, since the beta forums are closed now.

jayroth
05-03-2009, 06:09 PM
There is also the confusion about where we should be posting about bugs we are still finding, since the beta forums are closed now.

There should never be any confusion: always report bugs to fogbugz, regardless of the phase we are in at the moment. And don't forget content. No content, no fix, that I can guarantee.

lwanmtr
05-03-2009, 06:13 PM
Can you put a sticky somewhere with the link to fogbugs? (or did i miss that?)

Also..Chuck mentioned that opening Cocoa beta to current 9.6 users was under evaluation..has there been any word on that?

Chuck
05-04-2009, 10:29 AM
Can you put a sticky somewhere with the link to fogbugs? (or did i miss that?)

Also..Chuck mentioned that opening Cocoa beta to current 9.6 users was under evaluation..has there been any word on that?

Posted in this forum section since August 29, 2007: Instructions for Bug Report and Feature Request Database (http://www.newtek.com/forums/showthread.php?t=73227)

Once a product is released, the support sections are the proper place to discuss bugs, where you feel you need to do some discussion in addition to posting them to the fogbugz database. This section would be for problems on the Mac version of LightWave 3D.

There has not been word on the proposed Open Beta for Cocoa v9.6. I'll nudge the appropriate folks and remind them we have a lot of people who want to hear on this soonest.

3dworks
05-04-2009, 10:46 AM
...

There has not been word on the proposed Open Beta for Cocoa v9.6. I'll nudge the appropriate folks and remind them we have a lot of people who want to hear on this soonest.

great, we are all looking forward hearing news about this and any other cocoa or 9.6.x news ;)

markus

lwanmtr
05-04-2009, 03:08 PM
Thats great Chuck, thanx. Can still offer fruit pies :)

How about making some sorta cool "I waited years for Cocoa and all I gt was this lousy shirt" sorta thing for use mac users? LOL

3dworks
05-04-2009, 03:36 PM
Thats great Chuck, thanx. Can still offer fruit pies :)

How about making some sorta cool "I waited years for Cocoa and all I gt was this lousy shirt" sorta thing for use mac users? LOL

shirt? what shirt?? not here - it never arrived!!! :D 8~

Glendalough
05-05-2009, 05:29 PM
great, we are all looking forward hearing news about this and any other cocoa or 9.6.x news ;)

markus

We are all looking forward to Good News.

rakker16mm
08-07-2009, 11:05 PM
Wat is de status gladdis?

Machine translation: I haven't been around much lately and I was curious if there has been any news on the 64 bit mac version of 9.6

littlewaves
08-08-2009, 01:04 AM
Wat is de status gladdis?

Machine translation: I haven't been around much lately and I was curious if there has been any news on the 64 bit mac version of 9.6

http://www.newtek.com/forums/showthread.php?t=100714