Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 91

Thread: LightWave Suggestions and Speculations

  1. #31

    i'll assume you own the Rebel Hill series
    http://www.rebelhill.net/index.html
    I did buy his tutorials and have enjoyed them. I just got the last ones a few weeks ago and they are Amazing!
    I really like how he explains things, I do not have an animation background before I started so it is super helpful.
    yes, they are Fantastic, imo.
    you should also get the Ryan Roye ones, to get some perspective on different ways to go about CA.
    https://www.liberty3d.com/citizens/ryan-roye

    and don't forget ODToolSet, to speed things up.
    http://www.origamidigital.com/odtoolsOrder.html
    LW vidz   DPont donate   LightWiki   RHiggit   IKBooster   My vidz

  2. #32
    Serious question... do people really need to budget for $299 that it will affect the whole rest of the year of buying decisions?

  3. #33

    some, i work at a school, our budget is ridiculous. (low)
    LW vidz   DPont donate   LightWiki   RHiggit   IKBooster   My vidz

  4. #34
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    476
    For me it is more than just that decision of budgeting. I also do try to budget as best I can but I do buy multiple licenses and may end up buying more if we stick with Lightwave. I only have one license that is upgraded to 2018 at the moment. I am hoping to expand this year

    - - - Updated - - -

    One other factor that does affect some of my decisions is that I also work on stuff in the Unreal Engine for a game we are making and again most of our freelancers who use the unreal engine use other software.

  5. #35
    Electron wrangler jwiede's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    San Jose, CA
    Posts
    6,485
    Quote Originally Posted by hrgiger View Post
    Serious question... do people really need to budget for $299 that it will affect the whole rest of the year of buying decisions?
    Also depends on how many seats are involved, of course.
    John W.
    LW2015.3UB/2018.0.7 on MacPro(12C/24T/10.13.6),32GB RAM, NV 980ti

  6. #36
    Electron wrangler jwiede's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    San Jose, CA
    Posts
    6,485
    Quote Originally Posted by erikals View Post
    the next LightWave will include Metamorphic from what i recall.

    their aim, based on notes from the programmer, and recent user research, is also to upgrade Modeler. (yes)
    however, seeing that a Modeler part rewrite will take longer than what the Layout upgrade did (according to the programmer) it might be unlikely to see this Modeler upgrade any time soon.
    https://forums.newtek.com/showthread...=1#post1460368
    I think expecting anything of the sort you're suggesting is setting yourself up for disappointment.

    There have been some recurring themes in the departing comments from LW mgmt & devs, esp. around "not being allowed to make deeply-needed changes". If only one or two had said something along those lines, it might not be worth giving attention, but that theme's been repeated enough times now to suggest there's a real issue there. On top of that, factor in the ongoing lack of serious dev efforts to areas other than surfacing/rendering, absence of expenditure/effort towards marketing and customer relations, as well as various indications of understaffing.

    Eventually, there are just too many points in too tight of a line to sustain belief in lack of correlation.
    John W.
    LW2015.3UB/2018.0.7 on MacPro(12C/24T/10.13.6),32GB RAM, NV 980ti

  7. #37

    There have been some recurring themes in the departing comments from LW mgmt & devs, esp. around "not being allowed to make deeply-needed changes". If only one or two had said something along those lines, it might not be worth giving attention, but that theme's been repeated enough times now to suggest there's a real issue there.
    didn't know. if so i think they need to revive Core, or start from scratch.
    LW vidz   DPont donate   LightWiki   RHiggit   IKBooster   My vidz

  8. #38
    Quote Originally Posted by erikals View Post

    didn't know. if so i think they need to revive Core, or start from scratch.
    I have moved to Blender now for the majority of my work and I have not used LightWave for over a year. I really can’t see any benefits to using it anymore to be honest, but I’m sure everyone has things they prefer about LightWave. I really tried to stick with LightWave, but it just didn’t make sense to me to keep feeding money into it when Blender is making such great leaps.

  9. #39
    Super Member COBRASoft's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Oudenburg, BEL
    Posts
    3,179
    I hope they continue core in the background and as such implemented the new render engine, volumetrics and such in current LW2018 for testing purposes lol

  10. #40
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    France
    Posts
    93
    If so Core will take more time year to finish or they are in their way from since Lightwave 2018 ? Don't know hope they can bright it soon ...

  11. #41
    Electron wrangler jwiede's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    San Jose, CA
    Posts
    6,485
    I still believe (or want to, anyway) that positive changes can occur. I really wish we were receiving tangible evidence that the scope and depth of work being done was significantly greater than ever in the past, and were witnessing other signs of renewed investment and motivation (investments in marketing, staffing, etc.) towards LW.

    If I were seeing those kinds of signs, I would feel much, much better about LW's future. I have witnessed some positive signs, but they're limited, and (too) similar to what I've witnessed in the past. History has shown over and over how those play out: By themselves, they just aren't enough to trigger the kind of sweeping growth/improvement needed to reverse LW's situation (IMO, YMMV, etc.).
    Last edited by jwiede; 01-12-2019 at 03:08 PM.
    John W.
    LW2015.3UB/2018.0.7 on MacPro(12C/24T/10.13.6),32GB RAM, NV 980ti

  12. #42
    Of course some positive things can happen and the next LW will likely have some new modeling features (based on the whole LW modeler survey thing) and they have bought Metamorphic but after only a year, I wouldn't count on any sea change of architectural improvements. I'm guessing it will be the low hanging fruit variety of changes for modeler like smoothing groups(that people have been asking for now for years) or maybe a few other game features/export, maybe a few new modeling tools, etc… And those would be welcome additions but the issue is, they seem like a bigger deal if you're a LW user and now you have new native functionality and largely irrelevant if you're looking from the outside at what LW is bringing new to the table. And if that is what is offered, it completely ignores the deep and longstanding issues that Modeler has. New tools are low hanging fruit and probably the last thing Modeler would need to become relevant again.

    Forget about CORE. It could have been something (maybe), but its dead Jim.

  13. #43
    Electron wrangler jwiede's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    San Jose, CA
    Posts
    6,485
    Quote Originally Posted by hrgiger View Post
    New tools are low hanging fruit and probably the last thing Modeler would need to become relevant again.


    Modeler direly needs serious UI/UX and "tool coalescing/reorganization" work much more that it needs any more new tools.

    Surfacing in Modeler is also now rather fundamentally broken, as well, so add that to the "Modeler show-stoppers" list. Modeler can't just be left without surfacing preview support, that has a seriously negative impact on modeling and even surfacing (due to UVs) UX/workflows. That the devs thought leaving Modeler surfacing support in its current state was "okay" is disturbing, to say the least.

    IMO, the current Modeler architecture has zero chance of ever becoming "relevant" again. Between UI/UX constraints and lengthy lists of missing "standard/required features and capabilities" which cannot be efficiently implemented within the existing architecture, I just don't see how Modeler can be brought to a state that significant quantities of new customers would embrace.

    By the time you've replaced the UI engine/app framework, the geometry engine/scenegraph, related tool infrastructure, likely significant parts of the viewport/OGL (to deal with UI & geometry engines' changes), etc. you're really talking about a new, different architecture/infrastructure overall. Unfortunately, at this point, that's all necessary to eliminate key limitations preventing critical features from being added to Modeler. It's a lot of work, but that's WHY it's better to continually update and replace systems over time: If not done that way, necessary work builds up over time, and quicker than you'd expect, the situation becomes "death by a thousand cuts".

    Quote Originally Posted by hrgiger View Post
    Forget about CORE. It could have been something (maybe), but its dead Jim.
    Ayup. There was a time when that path might have worked, but that window has closed (and the window's since been covered with drywall ...and bricks ...and then nuked from orbit).
    Last edited by jwiede; 01-12-2019 at 04:30 PM.
    John W.
    LW2015.3UB/2018.0.7 on MacPro(12C/24T/10.13.6),32GB RAM, NV 980ti

  14. #44
    Registered User Rayek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    1,448
    If Modeler needs to be mostly re-written (as it should be), the small LW team will be battling on two fronts: Modeler and Layout. Is every development cycle now putting an alternating focus on one or the other? That seems a rather neurotic approach to development. It's not as if they are able to compete with any other mainstream 3D DCC software at this point, let alone having to divide their small resources on maintaining two code bases with a patched-up bridge app to keep things running.

    Which brings up the matter of Modeler integration into Layout once again, or lack thereof. Many of the current limitations and workflow problems can be traced right back at this. Preaching to the choir and water under the bridge, and all that, however. It's been discussed ad infinitum.

    What would be the point of rewriting Modeler's architecture separate from Layout? They'd have to code manage two applications again, and trying to keep both feature-par is a waste of time, IMO. But the current management seemingly swiped Modeler/Layout integration off the table as far as I am aware.

    Unless they've strategized this approach right from the start to achieve a refactoring of both (which, based on Lightwave's management past is HIGHLY doubtful), I feel they've painted themselves in a corner.

    In the end this is all conjecture. Newtek has fallen silent on the matter, and we will see what we will see. Hope for the best, expect the worst.
    Win10 64 - i7 [email protected], p6t Deluxe v1, 48gb, Nvidia GTX 1080 8GB, Revodrive X2 240gb, e-mu 1820. Screens: 2 x Samsung s27a850ds 2560x1440, HP 1920x1200 in portrait mode

  15. #45
    Electron wrangler jwiede's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    San Jose, CA
    Posts
    6,485
    Quote Originally Posted by Rayek View Post
    In the end this is all conjecture.
    There is actual evidence indicating certain serious problems exist, and further, events continue to play out exactly as if such problems exist (across an extended period). There's a huge difference between baseless conjecture (aka hypothesis, what most mean when they use "conjecture"), and conjecture modeled upon actual evidence (aka theory).

    I wish it were all hypothesis, but that hasn't been the case here for some time.
    Last edited by jwiede; 01-12-2019 at 04:53 PM.
    John W.
    LW2015.3UB/2018.0.7 on MacPro(12C/24T/10.13.6),32GB RAM, NV 980ti

Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... 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
  •