Page 13 of 26 FirstFirst ... 3111213141523 ... LastLast
Results 181 to 195 of 379

Thread: Gearing up for LW12?

  1. #181
    Electron wrangler jwiede's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    San Jose, CA
    Posts
    6,688
    Quote Originally Posted by Surrealist. View Post
    Well there is a difference between an "ideal" plan and a "best workable" plan. And that is something we all have to balance in our lives to get anything done. So I think if we give them that and apply a little logic to it, you can see that are doing the best they can with a plan that is really a decade or more off.
    When you say 10 calendar years, how many developer/years of effort does that comprise? Are you expecting each developer to only contribute some fraction like 10% of a developer/year of effort to that work per calendar year? How many developers are contributing effort each calendar year, total?
    John W.
    LW2015.3UB/2019.1.4 on MacPro(12C/24T/10.13.6),64GB RAM, NV 980ti

  2. #182
    The new Zbrush features seem to turn it into an amazing hard surface poly to sub-D modeler. Zbrush was one of those apps I bought into and then did nothing with, but I have to really get back with the program now I think.

  3. #183
    I think its a wasted effort for Newtek to unify the application unless the re-write of the architecture allows it to expand new features (fluids, smoke, new particle system, etc).
    If they can do all that with the current setup, then I agree .. .focus that energy and resources to those capabilities.

    Lightwave was right about subdivision when the industry was "nurbs are the future", fprime/vpr before everyone else, meshes living outside the scene file, etc..etc.

  4. #184
    Defender of Mankind Emmanuel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    1,079
    Nope, if they do not unify, they waste their ressources. Example: the particle system hasnt seen much love recently. In Cinema4D You can use all the deformers such as bend, twist etc to "model" the particles and their motion paths. If You would add that functionality into Layout you would essentially copy modeler. The best idea would be to unfy modeler and layout so You can use all the modeling tools for animation.
    Bye,
    Emmanuel

    ----------------
    For Hire
    Portfolio
    Graveyard Dogs Indie game dev blog, visit and vote for the best RPG of all time !

  5. #185
    Adapting Artist jasonwestmas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    11,399
    The idea of a hub is a good one but in lightwave's case it becomes a nuisance for various workflow and stability reasons.

    The main reason I think to unify the apps. is to put vertex mapping tools inside of layout, Vmap advantages go all accross the board no matter if you are an animator, or just rendering a still. The second biggest reason is so that animators have more interactive tools right beside the rest of their animation tools that are already in layout. And of course the camera/modeling capabilities that come along with that.
    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.

  6. #186
    I think integration is a foregone conclusion.

    The current situation however probably will mean "integrated" functionality or tools written into current LightWave.

    The problem with integration first is that it poses the question, once you start with the blank canvas, then what? And I think that road as been traveled and it was decided it was too long of a road to get a fully functioning app. So I have no idea how they are going to pull off the current plan. But it does not take a spreadsheet and a pencil to figure it is a long hall.

  7. #187
    Registered User octopus2000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    the future
    Posts
    247
    what if nt add modeling tools inside layout itself, and eventually just drop modeler. maybe they could add tools that supports ngons. add 3d painting tools, particles and liquids, and they could also add full support for max, maya, houdini, cinema4d or modo object files along with the maps intact. this could be a winning strategy. well it's one man's opinion.

  8. #188
    Adapting Artist jasonwestmas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    11,399
    Quote Originally Posted by Surrealist. View Post
    The problem with integration first is that it poses the question, once you start with the blank canvas, then what? And I think that road as been traveled and it was decided it was too long of a road to get a fully functioning app. So I have no idea how they are going to pull off the current plan. But it does not take a spreadsheet and a pencil to figure it is a long hall.
    The interesting thing today is that almost anything is possible technologically, it's more of a matter of selling the fastest workflow and the highest performing software when dealing with heavy scenes. Obviously experienced CG people are looking for both. Many of us want to be creatively flexible when we are in production. We can't possibly foresee every single bump or visual problem before hand (Pre-Production), so we desire the tools that allow us to make changes quickly and with fewer breakages during our process. For example if we need to make changes to geometry after the model is rigged, we have no desire to throw out all the weight-maps just so we can do that, we desire tools that allow us to preserve or reproject our previous work onto our modifications of any kind. Another example is having the capability to stack our effects on top of each other just like someone would layer pixels and blending modes in photoshop, add to that layering system a graph (nodes or what have you) and you have the best of both worlds.

    As far as how big of a project should a company forego. Well that is definitely something to consider very early on. Obviously NT couldn't handle something that huge, whatever they were attempting. I think smaller companies should start with more specialized software and then slowly add to that in a modular fashion, it only makes sense.

    Pixologic is the prime example that I think of when it comes to specialized software because they are focusing on 1001 ways to sculpt and model and NOW they are bringing box modeling to the table and seeing how that can be integrated to a sculpting workflow that is already in place. Yes they have some animation cache and painting capabilities but that part of Zbrush is light years behind the modeling and sculpting capabilities. Does this lack of animation and texture painting capabilities make owning a copy of zbrush any less desireable, maybe a little but as a modeling package, everybody I know wants to use it! I believe that is because a small company chose to be specialized first, not try to "rule them all."

    When LWG announced and showed off chronosculpt, which is a very specialized package (kinda small in functionality atm) immediately I thought, yes, this is a very smart move for a company that desperately needs some attention in the market.

    So imo, that is what you should do with a blank canvas. Preserving too much of the old and trying to cover every discipline with your software is self-defeating, especially now days.
    Last edited by jasonwestmas; 08-09-2014 at 11:44 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.

  9. #189
    Adapting Artist jasonwestmas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    11,399
    Quote Originally Posted by octopus2000 View Post
    what if nt add modeling tools inside layout itself, and eventually just drop modeler. maybe they could add tools that supports ngons. add 3d painting tools, particles and liquids, and they could also add full support for max, maya, houdini, cinema4d or modo object files along with the maps intact. this could be a winning strategy. well it's one man's opinion.

    Just because I enjoy talking about this kind of thing for whatever reason:

    I could be wrong but I think Lightwave users tend to be dualists. Meaning they will use modo or zbrush or 3dcoat along with lightwave but if they do I doubt many of them would be using maya and max also for a third wheel (for animation or whatever). Maybe someone should start a poll.

    I know there are some maya, max and houdini users out there who still use lightwave for personal stuff but I doubt there are many of those anymore. Not a fact, just an assumption.

    A large studio is something different though. I've been places where you will have maya, max, zbrush, modo, 3dcoat all in the same building. Not sure how rare that is.
    Last edited by jasonwestmas; 08-09-2014 at 11:53 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.

  10. #190
    Quote Originally Posted by jasonwestmas View Post
    The interesting thing today is that almost anything is possible technologically, it's more of a matter of selling the fastest workflow and the highest performing software when dealing with heavy scenes. Obviously experienced CG people are looking for both. Many of us want to be creatively flexible when we are in production. We can't possibly foresee every single bump or visual problem before hand (Pre-Production), so we desire the tools that allow us to make changes quickly and with fewer breakages during our process. For example if we need to make changes to geometry after the model is rigged, we have no desire to throw out all the weight-maps just so we can do that, we desire tools that allow us to preserve or reproject our previous work onto our modifications of any kind. Another example is having the capability to stack our effects on top of each other just like someone would layer pixels and blending modes in photoshop, add to that layering system a graph (nodes or what have you) and you have the best of both worlds.

    As far as how big of a project should a company forego. Well that is definitely something to consider very early on. Obviously NT couldn't handle something that huge, whatever they were attempting. I think smaller companies should start with more specialized software and then slowly add to that in a modular fashion, it only makes sense.

    Pixologic is the prime example that I think of when it comes to specialized software because they are focusing on 1001 ways to sculpt and model and NOW they are bringing box modeling to the table and seeing how that can be integrated to a sculpting workflow that is already in place. Yes they have some animation cache and painting capabilities but that part of Zbrush is light years behind the modeling and sculpting capabilities. Does this lack of animation and texture painting capabilities make owning a copy of zbrush any less desireable, maybe a little but as a modeling package, everybody I know wants to use it! I believe that is because a small company chose to be specialized first, not try to "rule them all."

    When LWG announced and showed off chronosculpt, which is a very specialized package (kinda small in functionality atm) immediately I thought, yes, this is a very smart move for a company that desperately needs some attention in the market.

    So imo, that is what you should do with a blank canvas. Preserving too much of the old and trying to cover every discipline with your software is self-defeating, especially now days.


    Yeah, that is a very well-written assessment of the situation I think.

    My view is based not on what I'd like to see happen, but rather, what I think likely will, given the fact that LightWave is already a "rules them all" application for the people that use it that way. (listen to some of the claims on this site and even some of Rob's comments) This is how it is being used by a lot of the user base and how it is being promoted - as well as an app that fits into pipelines.

    The situation is such that you have an app that already has an established user base and workflow.

    I don't do the books over at NewTek so I have no idea of the numbers. But apparently someone does, I would presume. And either they are real bad at math or they have a reason not to simply kill off LightWave entirely - as has recently happened with XSI - in order to focus funds in another area they think they can get more return from. Such as Building CS into a gradually more fully functioning app or whatever.

    Therefore I predict this will not happen, and that rather, you will continue to see improvements to the app that is bringing in the cash. And the current situation dictates that you will always have to be able to model, animate, do dynamics, render, et all in LightWave. And that each release will focus on improvements to different aspects of this. And it is presumed from what has been stated, that all the while they have been infusing the core tech into LightWave and eventually reach a point where integration would be possible. But regardless of what happens, LightWave will continue to be used as an all purpose app. It seems if dropping any aspect of this is simply something that can not be tolerated for any length of time.

    LightWave will not replace any of the more higher end solutions. But like Blender and Modo, presents and option. And I think this is what they plan to build on, it seems.

  11. #191
    Adapting Artist jasonwestmas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    11,399
    Quote Originally Posted by Surrealist. View Post
    Yeah, that is a very well-written assessment of the situation I think.

    My view is based not on what I'd like to see happen, but rather, what I think likely will, given the fact that LightWave is already a "rules them all" application for the people that use it that way. (listen to some of the claims on this site and even some of Rob's comments) This is how it is being used by a lot of the user base and how it is being promoted - as well as an app that fits into pipelines.

    The situation is such that you have an app that already has an established user base and workflow.

    I don't do the books over at NewTek so I have no idea of the numbers. But apparently someone does, I would presume. And either they are real bad at math or they have a reason not to simply kill off LightWave entirely - as has recently happened with XSI - in order to focus funds in another area they think they can get more return from. Such as Building CS into a gradually more fully functioning app or whatever.

    Therefore I predict this will not happen, and that rather, you will continue to see improvements to the app that is bringing in the cash. And the current situation dictates that you will always have to be able to model, animate, do dynamics, render, et all in LightWave. And that each release will focus on improvements to different aspects of this. And it is presumed from what has been stated, that all the while they have been infusing the core tech into LightWave and eventually reach a point where integration would be possible. But regardless of what happens, LightWave will continue to be used as an all purpose app. It seems if dropping any aspect of this is simply something that can not be tolerated for any length of time.

    LightWave will not replace any of the more higher end solutions. But like Blender and Modo, presents and option. And I think this is what they plan to build on, it seems.
    Certainly, Lightwave will continue to be developed, I have no doubts about that. At the same time however the comment about the "blank slate" situation is definitely something Newtek is interested in, otheriwse I don't think they would be developing something like Chronosculpt. I see it more like they have a test bed of tools and the the heavier data tools will be moved into a new, less complex environment that can still be sold(Chronosculpt or something else) and Lightwave will continue to be sold for quick turnaround projects that are smaller in scope. This way new developments can still be made while Lightwave classic is cleaned up and hopefully modernized to handle the bigger projects. The goal being to have a product that does things that no other product on the market does AND maintain the familiar environment that current users enjoy while they rip out the ugly inflexible stuff.
    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.

  12. #192
    Yeah, that is pretty much how I see it.

    I was relating clean slate to LightWave, and specifically the statements that starting LW over from a clean slate is a workable solution which I don't think it is.

    I love the idea of them taking something like CS and creating a new app that grows into something kinda like Zbrush did over time and even eventually incorporates more features. I also thought it was a brilliant way to get something out there with new tech and generate income. As I understand it, the plan is as you say to infuse more and more of this into LW classic. That is pretty much how I see it.

    But I also do see them making some compromises that are going to confuse and even anger some people along the way such as a camera in Modeler or something like that. And I think some people will complain, and others will be delighted. But at the end of the day it will be doing what they can to take things from the integrated workflow and infuse these one way or another into LightWave. And I don't think it should be viewed as them not understanding or getting the bigger picture of a unified solution. I think it is just a matter of balance.

    In a nutshell I think LW3DG gets it. They are trying to balance a very difficult task of the long range goals they know have to happen with shorter range features that also have to happen. And I am fairly convinced that an all out rewrite is a long ways off and completely impractical to consider as done even in the next few releases.

  13. #193
    Registered User octopus2000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    the future
    Posts
    247
    if nt made companion apps like nevronmotion or chronosculpt, then they might as well make another companion app for modeling with 3d paint to go along with it. this will allow nt to keep lightwave classic, but allow others to have another option at modeling without relearning a whole new 3d app because it's still lightwave.

  14. #194
    Well these are all interesting points, because, as Jason pointed out, he strength in the idea of starting with an app that has a focus like modeling and sculpting and building on that. Had core started out as a code base into which they had the immediate plan to build a modeling solution, fist, separate from LW, and then with that code base in place, and with a viable modeling app that could have been be finished and sold along side LW, they could have then started to build on it and it could have matured over time to replace LightWave. The main difference here, from the way they attempted core would be to set a realistic set of goals. Where as core attempted to do the entire thing all in one shot.

    Interesting about CS. I know, a lot of people have speculated. And I don't know what the possibilities are with the code base there. But I like the idea of building on something that is already completely innovative in approach.

    Blender for instance has an add on called anim all which takes advantages of a lot of the built in api in Blender for animating pretty much anything and it is pretty cool.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xlJ71XChDuY

    So I do think it would be a viable option to build up CS along side LW rather than trying to infuse it into LW Classic. It is an approach that has been successful with Modo. Why not repeat?

  15. #195
    Electron wrangler jwiede's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    San Jose, CA
    Posts
    6,688
    Quote Originally Posted by Surrealist. View Post
    Had core started out as a code base into which they had the immediate plan to build a modeling solution, fist, separate from LW, and then with that code base in place, and with a viable modeling app that could have been be finished and sold along side LW, they could have then started to build on it and it could have matured over time to replace LightWave.
    How soon people forget. That WAS the plan for CORE, initially it was focused primarily on modeling. The infrastructure was capable of more, but the tools, etc. present were all modeling-focused. About the only semi-exception was Bullet, and even it was (similar to Steve Hurley's Advanced Placement) focused initially on modeling-use scenarios. Go fire up one of the last CORE releases if you don't believe me.

    Yeesh, talk about coming full circle.
    John W.
    LW2015.3UB/2019.1.4 on MacPro(12C/24T/10.13.6),64GB RAM, NV 980ti

Page 13 of 26 FirstFirst ... 3111213141523 ... 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
  •