Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 81

Thread: GPU Rendering - Anywhere in the development pipeline for Lightwave?

  1. #46
    Super Member OlaHaldor's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    998
    I've also used the denoiser with Octane, it's fantastic. I could cut the render time by two thirds on my last freelance job. Going from over a day to a few hours of rendering. Client was very happy about the super fast turnaround.
    3D Generalist
    Threadripper 2920x, 128GB, RTX 2080 Ti, Windows 10

  2. #47
    NewTek Social Media Chuck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    San Antonio, TX
    Posts
    6,399
    Quote Originally Posted by hrgiger View Post
    Maybe you misunderstood. Someone from NT said they won't unify LW because too many studios don't want it. I mean first, are there a significant number of studios even using LW, even in a mixed pipeline and secondly what about unification would make it unusable? But it's a moot point since LW will never be unified. They went on to say that unification was about procedural modeling. Which again is a strange statement since procedural modeling is only a small part of overall unification benefits.
    Apologies if this isn't the case, but adding up your comments it sounds like you are talking about the discussion from Twitch recently. Deuce Bennett did note that there are both users and studios that prefer the separated apps, but also specifically stated that nothing was off the table in regard to the future on the point of separate applications versus a unified application. He also acknowledged this is a hot topic with lots of vehement advocates on both sides of the proposition, and that the team must do its best to take every user into account. He talked about the value of getting modeling into Layout, particularly with regard to animateable modeling capabilities; and he's puzzled by your take on his comments on the topic of procedural modeling as he certainly does not see that as primarily what unification is about, with respect to what the team hears from users. Really, that's its own thing.
    Chuck Baker
    Senior Manager of Communications
    NewTek, Inc., Vizrt Group
    NewTek.com
    LightWave3D.com
    NewTek USA Facebook
    Twitter
    LinkedIn
    Software Developer's Dilemma: The better the new feature, the more feature requests it will generate. - C. Baker
    Please note that any statements regarding future product development are forward looking and subject to change without notice.

  3. #48
    Quote Originally Posted by Chuck View Post
    Apologies if this isn't the case, but adding up your comments it sounds like you are talking about the discussion from Twitch recently. Deuce Bennett did note that there are both users and studios that prefer the separated apps, but also specifically stated that nothing was off the table in regard to the future on the point of separate applications versus a unified application. He also acknowledged this is a hot topic with lots of vehement advocates on both sides of the proposition, and that the team must do its best to take every user into account. He talked about the value of getting modeling into Layout, particularly with regard to animateable modeling capabilities; and he's puzzled by your take on his comments on the topic of procedural modeling as he certainly does not see that as primarily what unification is about, with respect to what the team hears from users. Really, that's its own thing.
    Well apologies to Deuce if I misheard what he was saying, but he did seem to indicate that the clear and obvious reason to have a unified application was to have modeling functionality/procedural modeling in the animation environment. He also went on to imply that the approach they would more likely take is adding that modeling functionality to Layout (which again is only a small part of the reasons for unification) since there were studios who did not want LW to become unified But again, I don't take anything that is said on future developments as a promise or guarantee, I was merely stating what I heard on Twitch. For those of us who favored the idea of unification, that ship has come into port, blown its airhorn and sailed off again on several occasions, when the original team left to form Luxology, the 'modeling tools in layout' bullet point in LW 9, the rise and fall of the CORE application, and Rob's assertion that the new direction that LW under him was headed in was a different route but ultimately the same destination of that of CORE, a unified application.

    The fact that unification may still be 'on the table' is nice and all but even if that's the case, that's a huge undertaking (unless its done extremely haphazardly) to put a UI and UX together that works in Layout that doesn't end up being exactly what people fear about other unified apps and a system that well integrated into the application. It would also be a huge undertaking to try and replicate all of modeler's functions in Layout (as outdated as some of them are, there is still vital functionality for LW modelers) and so Modeler and Layout would still be required for many years to come. And for those of us who already waited years for movement in this area, that's a hard pill to swallow.

  4. #49
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    431
    Quote Originally Posted by Chuck View Post
    Apologies if this isn't the case, but adding up your comments it sounds like you are talking about the discussion from Twitch recently. Deuce Bennett did note that there are both users and studios that prefer the separated apps, but also specifically stated that nothing was off the table in regard to the future on the point of separate applications versus a unified application. He also acknowledged this is a hot topic with lots of vehement advocates on both sides of the proposition, and that the team must do its best to take every user into account. He talked about the value of getting modeling into Layout, particularly with regard to animateable modeling capabilities; and he's puzzled by your take on his comments on the topic of procedural modeling as he certainly does not see that as primarily what unification is about, with respect to what the team hears from users. Really, that's its own thing.
    But is anyone actively working on a GPU rendering solution for Lightwave? Or further cooperative development with other external GPU render engines to create direct pipeline plugins for Lightwave?

    *hint hint*cough*original thread topic*

  5. #50
    NewTek Social Media Chuck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    San Antonio, TX
    Posts
    6,399
    Quote Originally Posted by RPSchmidt View Post
    But is anyone actively working on a GPU rendering solution for Lightwave? Or further cooperative development with other external GPU render engines to create direct pipeline plugins for Lightwave?

    *hint hint*cough*original thread topic*
    Nothing more specific than that none of the above is off the table, and as with other topics, we are listening to users, observing the industry, and evaluating, doing our best to take everyone's needs into account.
    Chuck Baker
    Senior Manager of Communications
    NewTek, Inc., Vizrt Group
    NewTek.com
    LightWave3D.com
    NewTek USA Facebook
    Twitter
    LinkedIn
    Software Developer's Dilemma: The better the new feature, the more feature requests it will generate. - C. Baker
    Please note that any statements regarding future product development are forward looking and subject to change without notice.

  6. #51
    Lava Lamp Technician 3D Kiwi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Sydney, West Island of New Zealand
    Posts
    614
    Quote Originally Posted by Chuck View Post
    Apologies if this isn't the case, but adding up your comments it sounds like you are talking about the discussion from Twitch recently. Deuce Bennett did note that there are both users and studios that prefer the separated apps, but also specifically stated that nothing was off the table in regard to the future on the point of separate applications versus a unified application. He also acknowledged this is a hot topic with lots of vehement advocates on both sides of the proposition, and that the team must do its best to take every user into account. He talked about the value of getting modeling into Layout, particularly with regard to animateable modeling capabilities; and he's puzzled by your take on his comments on the topic of procedural modeling as he certainly does not see that as primarily what unification is about, with respect to what the team hears from users. Really, that's its own thing.
    So after all this time Newtek still hasn't decided weather they will unify Lightwave or not???

  7. #52
    Quote Originally Posted by EBD3D View Post
    Imageshoppe
    "As a potential Octane user, I'm skeptical of their denoise over a sequence of frames until I've actually tried it. For those who use it, does it work?"


    https://youtu.be/TAp17DOpfu8


    It works really well
    Thank you for your example!

    Regards,

  8. #53

    Quote Originally Posted by 3D Kiwi View Post
    So after all this time Newtek still hasn't decided weather they will unify Lightwave or not???
    sure sounds like it.
    it might be that that question has simply been postponed (again).
    imo a future unification is inevitable for any serious 3D app.
    for now the split "works" especially for Film Studios.
    for Motion Graphics, it has painfully obvious lacks.

    lucky for me, i'm more of a "Indie Film" guy, so the restrictions are of a bit less concern.
    LW vidz   DPont donate   LightWiki   RHiggit   IKBooster   My vidz

  9. #54
    Super Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Washington DC
    Posts
    3,627
    Quote Originally Posted by 3D Kiwi View Post
    So after all this time Newtek still hasn't decided weather they will unify Lightwave or not???
    but why does this have to be the KEY issue with Lightwave?


    In my humble opinion, right now the key issue is an outdated interface in Layout that could use honestly a complete overhaul.
    I say keep mopdeler separate as a poly program and have PROCEDURAL modeling be part of LAYOUt where it would do most good.
    This message does not reflect the opinions of the US Government, CG Networks or CGTALK.com. The opinions expressed on this posting are on my own volition.

  10. #55
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    a place
    Posts
    1,853
    you don’t need to fully unify, just put some of modellers features in layout and some of layouts features in modeller

    and adding a few lwo3 plugins that retained data for other 3d applications would go a long way to making sweet pipelines too. it doesn’t have to all be lw based.
    it was on the right track with lwo2 support in a lot of apps till that died. i personally reverted substance to get back lwo2 support even though i have oliver’s great tools.

    tbh what if lw could read a maya or modo or max scene ? they are doing it with unity and unreal but i think that’s where the fbx interchange is headed. just leverage other people’s dev teams and tech. they work for you
    Last edited by gar26lw; 03-01-2019 at 07:23 AM.

  11. #56
    pass:sword OFF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Russia
    Posts
    1,014
    Quote Originally Posted by gar26lw View Post

    tbh what if lw could read a maya or modo or max scene ? they are doing it with unity and unreal but i think that’s where the fbx interchange is headed. just leverage other people’s dev teams and tech. they work for you
    Wow, sounds very interesting!

  12. #57
    Super Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Washington DC
    Posts
    3,627
    Quote Originally Posted by gar26lw View Post
    y
    tbh what if lw could read a maya or modo or max scene ? they are doing it with unity and unreal but i think that’s where the fbx interchange is headed. just leverage other people’s dev teams and tech. they work for you
    Honestly, the way things are going, they would be better off offering support for Blender scenes. Since that is too complicated, I would settle with full Alembic support.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alembi...uter_graphics)
    EDIT
    Lw 2019 does offers it. My bad.
    Last edited by robertoortiz; 03-01-2019 at 08:59 AM.
    This message does not reflect the opinions of the US Government, CG Networks or CGTALK.com. The opinions expressed on this posting are on my own volition.

  13. #58
    Lava Lamp Technician 3D Kiwi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Sydney, West Island of New Zealand
    Posts
    614
    There are many reasons to unify lightwave if they want the application to move forward and reach its full potential.
    But for me the key issues is that they haven't made a decision yet, This has been a hot topic for years now. Surely having the app split or unified has a huge impact on how
    they plan for development.

  14. #59
    Quote Originally Posted by gar26lw View Post

    tbh what if lw could read a maya or modo or max scene ?
    only 3ds Max can open a 3ds Max scene
    stee+cat
    real name: steve gilbert
    http://www.cresshead.com/

    Q - How many polys?
    A - All of them!

  15. #60
    Quote Originally Posted by 3D Kiwi View Post
    Surely having the app split or unified has a huge impact on how
    they plan for development.
    Having to develop for 2 different applications and THEN also make sure they line up to talk to each other with data communication must be really
    inefficient development wise....would be like having to develop maya AND 3dsmax at the same time.
    This is probably why the genoma preview window is broken in 2019 when you save a rig.

    and why development is nearly always layout centric over the last 10+ years.
    Last edited by cresshead; 03-01-2019 at 07:20 PM.
    stee+cat
    real name: steve gilbert
    http://www.cresshead.com/

    Q - How many polys?
    A - All of them!

Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 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
  •