Page 11 of 15 FirstFirst ... 910111213 ... LastLast
Results 151 to 165 of 217

Thread: Lightwave 12 and Lightwave's future

  1. #151
    Adapting Artist jasonwestmas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    11,399
    Quote Originally Posted by erikals View Post
    well, the idea behind Hydra is basically changing a huge foundation of the Modeler,

    if (!?) that is done, it is basically like changing the engine of a car, so in the end you are left with a Hot Rod...

    once done, you can choose to change the remaining parts, if you want to...

    but i have no idea just how they want to go about it... maybe Hydra ain't that big of a part of their new strategy after all... or maybe things / directions have changed...

    one thing is for sure, a huge change-over has do be made essentially...

    http://tinyurl.com/mo4lfyr
    I'm pretty sure that a geometry engine is only the end roots of something that grows much larger in the future. To tack on Weaker workflows to this kind of modernization is kind of fruitless.
    Last edited by jasonwestmas; 06-28-2014 at 11:42 AM.
    All that is powerful or long standing is first conceived in the imagination; supported by the hope of possibility and then made manifest in our commitment of our current physical reality.

  2. #152
    Quote Originally Posted by jeric_synergy View Post
    Madness. To users, the UI is the program. To change the UI radically is to switch the program, not evolve it.

    The underlying plumbing is not important to the user, except in how it benefits/hinders the development of the program.

    Over and over from users who know multiple programs I read about how FAST modeler is, and how organic Layout feels (with IMO the most natural camera in the market). So I assume there's some virtues in the current UI.

    My impression is that the plumbing is what's hindering development. I used to hear about the craziest limitations of the Panels toolkit. Looking at the mess that is the Layout Options Panel, I believe them.

    A radically new UI would alienate the last few people who still are on NewTek's side: Lightwave enthusiasts.
    You are very wrong. But feel free to work on a classic LW skin for future developments, but first take a look around outside of LightWave for yourself.

    The UI right now has a lot of problems, it's not terrible or unusable, but could use some love to become more manageable. And that goes in line with the needs of LW right now, better management of the application, scenes, contents and render.
    There are a lot of pop-up properties windows, when they all could be one window that refreshes when you call another window, or in case you lock that one, then a new one shows up. Right now those properties windows can't be integrated in the rest of the UI, either by docking, or by turning a viewport into such window. Scene Editor is the best thing we have to multi-manage items, but its a Master plugin and will not stay in place like other windows.I could go on with the many problems with the UI right now, but that's not productive at all if I'm not being asked directly, but some things are really hard to manage to get it your way so then you just adapt to whatever is there, like it or not.

    That LW being fast argument is debatable, because many things don't scale well and workarounds aren't fast to iterate over.

    Only thing NT needs to worry about is when/if they come out with something that is quite different from the current paradigm is to grow it with the beta users and afterwards, provide short and clear video highlights of the mindset of the new approach (both free and commercial), explaining how to get similar old things done and the nice advantages of access, management over old ways.

    I say this all the time, but here it goes again: Less rules that stack over and are applied everywhere are much more productive and human friendly (yup, screw artist friendly, we're all humans ) than say every window, tool and environment having its own separate mindset, UI, short-cuts, etc., like we have now. Like said before, unification is not just about doing all under the same roof, but also not having to radically train your brain for different sections of the app, when the same mindset could be applied in common areas.

    Anyways, I'm sure it's a very hard task and, unlike other times, I'm not here going up on tables and demanding for it. Just pointing out stuff, not expecting much, but keeping the ideas I think are fit, on the table.

    Cheers
    Last edited by probiner; 06-28-2014 at 12:40 PM.

  3. #153
    Goes bump in the night RebelHill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    jersey
    Posts
    5,783
    Yeah... probiner is right... The UI of a program is merely an abstraction of the underlying functionality. If you create significant enough change to the underlying program, you HAVE to make changes to the UI in order to accomodate the program flow underneath it. That's not to say you cant give it any "style" you like, but that amounts to nothing more than a choice of colours, fonts and icons.
    LSR Surface and Rendering Tuts.
    RHiggit Rigging and Animation Tools
    RHA Animation Tutorials
    RHR Rigging Tutorials
    RHN Nodal Tutorials
    YT Vids Tuts for all

  4. #154
    Pleased to meet you. Oedo 808's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,560
    Quote Originally Posted by probiner View Post
    You are very wrong.
    No he isn't, as Myagi well proved during the Hardcore fun.

    But feel free to work on a classic LW skin for future developments, but first take a look around outside of LightWave for yourself.
    He won't need to, it will be there, and there will be no problem.
    Sentenced to 310 years for crimes against modelling and rendering.

  5. #155
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    desktop
    Posts
    1,290
    Quote Originally Posted by jeric_synergy View Post
    Madness. To users, the UI is the program. To change the UI radically is to switch the program, not evolve it.

    The underlying plumbing is not important to the user, except in how it benefits/hinders the development of the program.

    Over and over from users who know multiple programs I read about how FAST modeler is, and how organic Layout feels (with IMO the most natural camera in the market). So I assume there's some virtues in the current UI.

    My impression is that the plumbing is what's hindering development. I used to hear about the craziest limitations of the Panels toolkit. Looking at the mess that is the Layout Options Panel, I believe them.

    A radically new UI would alienate the last few people who still are on NewTek's side: Lightwave enthusiasts.

    Agree with you on some points. This is UI/UX design problem that can be solved by a good designer. Take the good stuff from lightwave and skin them in a new way. But you don't have to stick with the old gui completely.
    Try using modo for atleast several hours. You will notice a lightwave user will get quickly familiar with modo with parts from lightwave that were (ahem)copied and presented in a new skin. The tools are extremely similar, info panels with lists taken directly from modeller, etc. The modo gui is a derivation of modeller and layout so it is familiar.

  6. #156
    Axes grinder- Dongle #99
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    14,737
    Quote Originally Posted by probiner View Post
    But feel free to work on a classic LW skin for future developments, but first take a look around outside of LightWave for yourself.
    You said it: outside Lightwave, IOW, NOT LW.

    The workflows and UI are "Lightwave". Change them too radically, and the product may be from LW3dG, but it ain't "Lightwave". It's something else.

    I'm not saying Lightwave can't (and must for that matter) evolve. But too fast a change you lose the very real "Lightwaviness" that makes it a pleasure to use.

    All that work that's already gone into the tools that we are familiar with is lost if the tools change too radically, and we are forced to start improving them, yet again.
    Last edited by jeric_synergy; 06-28-2014 at 02:04 PM.
    They only call it 'class warfare' when we fight back.
    Praise to Buddha! #resist
    Chard's Credo-"Documentation is PART of the Interface"
    Film the cops. Always FILM THE COPS. Use this app.

  7. #157
    Adapting Artist jasonwestmas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    11,399
    Quote Originally Posted by jeric_synergy View Post
    You said it: outside Lightwave, IOW, NOT LW.

    The workflows and UI are "Lightwave". Change them too radically, and the product may be from LW3dG, but it ain't "Lightwave". It's something else.

    I'm not saying Lightwave can't (and must for that matter) evolve. But too fast a change you lose the very real "Lightwaviness" that makes it a pleasure to use.
    New name will be in order.
    All that is powerful or long standing is first conceived in the imagination; supported by the hope of possibility and then made manifest in our commitment of our current physical reality.

  8. #158
    Axes grinder- Dongle #99
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    14,737
    Quote Originally Posted by RebelHill View Post
    Yeah... probiner is right... The UI of a program is merely an abstraction of the underlying functionality.
    I would say "underlying TASKS".

    If Adobe changed the architecture of PShop, I wouldn't especially expect the tools to change. They might improve faster, and some extension of their capabilites might occur, but the TASKS are the same.
    They only call it 'class warfare' when we fight back.
    Praise to Buddha! #resist
    Chard's Credo-"Documentation is PART of the Interface"
    Film the cops. Always FILM THE COPS. Use this app.

  9. #159
    Quote Originally Posted by jeric_synergy View Post
    You said it: outside Lightwave, IOW, NOT LW.

    The workflows and UI are "Lightwave". Change them too radically, and the product may be from LW3dG, but it ain't "Lightwave". It's something else.

    I'm not saying Lightwave can't (and must for that matter) evolve. But too fast a change you lose the very real "Lightwaviness" that makes it a pleasure to use.

    All that work that's already gone into the tools that we are familiar with is lost if the tools change too radically, and we are forced to start improving them, yet again.
    What no color text tags? pssshh.

    No, you said it:
    Over and over from users who know multiple programs I read about how FAST modeler is, and how organic Layout feels (with IMO the most natural camera in the market)
    And I told you to go out and check things for yourself, but then you say it's the most natural camera in the market... so you have used other apps? Confused, but with the impression you don't really know what is out there and you're just throwing notions. Unless you want to go specific on that.

    You say:
    Quote Originally Posted by jeric_synergy View Post
    Architecture is the ONE thing we can be sure they're working on: it's the frickin' roadblock to everything else.
    But you want it to still be Lightwave with the same UI and workflow issues? And just boot and not having to learn new things?Please define "Lightwaviness". Seriously.

    I don't have a clue why you think things would change very fast. New things come very slowly but steady if the advantages are proven and with enough time for someone to grow with them.
    I'm certainly not rooting for something new to come out just for the sake of it and then fail... Would be terrible again for NT and for LightWave.

    Quote Originally Posted by jeric_synergy View Post
    I would say "underlying TASKS".

    If Adobe changed the architecture of PShop, I wouldn't especially expect the tools to change. They might improve faster, and some extension of their capabilites might occur, but the TASKS are the same.
    Not a fair comparisson simply because even if some people are not happy with PS for some tasks it's still the standard to deal with static pixel images... LW is not the standard and has a lot more competitors than PS.

    Quote Originally Posted by Oedo 808 View Post
    No he isn't, as Myagi well proved during the Hardcore fun.
    Can we see it? Can you explain the conclusion of the presentation? If not, one can't grasp the meaning of your argument and acknowledge something.

    Anyway, not in our hands... Best wishes to LW3DG, it's not an easy place to be right now.

    Cheers
    Last edited by probiner; 06-28-2014 at 02:53 PM.

  10. #160
    The UI should evolve as the architecture beneath it changes. If they are making significant changes underneath then the UI would almost certainly have to change to a degree to accommodate. Do people just think that a unified LightWave (if that's indeed where we're headed as we really don't know that for sure) is going to look exactly the same only with twice the number of tabs along the top? My blood curdles at the thought of such a implementation.

  11. #161
    Goes bump in the night RebelHill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    jersey
    Posts
    5,783
    Quote Originally Posted by hrgiger View Post
    Do people just think that a unified LightWave (if that's indeed where we're headed as we really don't know that for sure) is going to look exactly the same only with twice the number of tabs along the top? My blood curdles at the thought of such a implementation.
    Mooo... fassssaaaa!!!
    LSR Surface and Rendering Tuts.
    RHiggit Rigging and Animation Tools
    RHA Animation Tutorials
    RHR Rigging Tutorials
    RHN Nodal Tutorials
    YT Vids Tuts for all

  12. #162
    RETROGRADER prometheus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    sweden stockholm
    Posts
    15,820
    Quote Originally Posted by hrgiger View Post
    The UI should evolve as the architecture beneath it changes. If they are making significant changes underneath then the UI would almost certainly have to change to a degree to accommodate. Do people just think that a unified LightWave (if that's indeed where we're headed as we really don't know that for sure) is going to look exactly the same only with twice the number of tabs along the top? My blood curdles at the thought of such a implementation.
    you really showcase a narrow description on "do people" which people?, how many? and do they or do they not? Think it will look the same with twice the number of tabs, sounds like a very narrow minded mind state on what other people might or even might not think it should look like.

    I agree with you on the architecture, but that doesnīt mean the UI could in fact stay pretty much the same in general feel, and just use a menu switch to or drop down of UI configs to select model environment or layout environment, could be almost as easy as that and still remain true to much of the old menus.
    Itīs all in the hands of the devs, they could take any direction really..the responding reactions from us is another thing though.

  13. #163
    Axes grinder- Dongle #99
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    14,737
    My camera experiences are with MAYA, Blender, and C4d. IMO all of them felt like they were designed by IT guys, not cinematographers.
    They only call it 'class warfare' when we fight back.
    Praise to Buddha! #resist
    Chard's Credo-"Documentation is PART of the Interface"
    Film the cops. Always FILM THE COPS. Use this app.

  14. #164

    hrgiger
    exactly the same only with twice the number of tabs along the top?
    well, that's how Maya does it, only difference is that they click a shortcut, so that those Modeling etc tabs are shown in another display :P :]

    come to think of it, i could make an AHK script that does that right now.... :°
    LW vidz   DPont donate   LightWiki   RHiggit   IKBooster   My vidz

  15. #165
    Pleased to meet you. Oedo 808's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,560
    Quote Originally Posted by probiner View Post
    Can we see it? Can you explain the conclusion of the presentation? If not, one can't grasp the meaning of your argument and acknowledge something.
    Might be around somewhere, but yeah I can explain it, it was a completely different editor program and thus a completely different architecture that was despite this, just like LightWave, and that's all I see most people wanting.

    I think the UI argument is time and again blown out of all proportion because the Core lamenters need someone to blame for us not having a unified LightWave with everything we have now and more. Quite frankly given the expectations that some people had for Core there is nothing too outlandish for the 11.7 wishlist, I mean how about unification, with everything we have now, why the **** not.

    I don't get this dismisive talk of the UI being an abstraction of the underlying architecture, of course it is, but this is not something trivial to me, a great deal of planning goes into this area for something that's just mishmash of fonts and colours which would suggest it is more than a peripheral concern to others as well. I just recently watched a video about Mocha where they make mention changes to the UI but add that there's no need to worry, it won't be unrecognisable, I wonder why they might have thought that was an issue?

    I'm pretty sure in all the suggestions jeric has come out with you would find some that would require a change in the current UI, I wanted changes to the UI in Core and I often see requests from the community that would see a change the current UI, so I'm not sure what it is that you and others are not grasping. I think you are imagining the rigidity of the position that people have regarding changes to the UI.

    Is there anything you do like about LightWave that you would not cast away?

    I also don't know why people keep saying the UI need change solely because of the architecture, that the UI is an abstraction of it is also what makes the idea false. The UI changes to accommodate how tools are interfaced not how they work underneath. If people think that the UI needs to change because say a history stack were implemented it would need a way to be interacted with conveniently, something like an integrated side panel, and you think people are objecting to that, I'd like to see where, I don't really get the sense that people are talking about the same things. Such a panel for me would be collapsible, like they are in ZBrush's and it would be just like LightWave only not because we don't yet have one, yet.

    Anyway, not in our hands... Best wishes to LW3DG, it's not an easy place to be right now.Cheers
    Thankfully it isn't our hands, I do have some faith that Matt has a grasp of what matters to me, understands what is appealing and will keep what can be kept and change sympathetically what needs to be changed. Topics like this do make me realize I really should do more though in terms of communicating what I want to see and also what I don't want to see lost, lest the emperor change into his new clothes and find things a bit breezy.
    Last edited by Oedo 808; 06-28-2014 at 04:28 PM.
    Sentenced to 310 years for crimes against modelling and rendering.

Page 11 of 15 FirstFirst ... 910111213 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •